MJ: The Genius of Michael Jackson By Steve Knopper

Found an early book review and I'm pretty sure it's going to be along the lines of Taraborelli/Sullivan.
http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-4767-3037-0

Also a youtube interview from '09
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO_i89NEdJM

Vid. gives an idea on the author's mindset.

Yeah, I mean it's Rolling Stone. Let's face it, the main focus is going to be on scandal, controversy, tragic life etc...I don't care how many people he interviewed or what they said, he's still going to put his own spin on it.

They never gave Michael his due as an artist or a human being when he was alive so I doubt like hell their going to do it now.
 
I actually contacted Knopper about an advance copy when he just announced the book, and I know of a couple other reviewers who did. He said "sure" to everybody and collected contact info, but so far he hasn't sent anything and I doubt that he is going to.

He sounds sneaky so far. I don't trust him at all.

It just makes me sick that this was promoted as fair and balanced and a definitive biography.

If it is what we fear it is is then I am sure Amazon reviews will take care of that claim.
 
My news feed just sent me a RS excerpt of the new book and it's a story of Billie Jean and the Motown 25 performance.
I just skimmed it, and it's real late here so I'll post it if somebody doesn't beat me to it overnight.

But I found a lot of things wrong with it and the writing (to me) isn't that entertaining. I happen to think the write up of BJ in Taraborrellis FIRST book is exceptional and really brings that magic night to life.

It also seems like a lot of people want to take credit for teaching him the dance and instead of being the 3 guys we know already, it's just 2 (and I've seen this argument on YouTube.)

They even change Berry Gordys version of events. Leave Suzanne dePasse out of the picture. What??

So I'm unhappy with that already and real unhappy with his somewhat flat writing style.
 
Inside Michael Jackson’s Iconic First Moonwalk Onstage

Exclusive book excerpt tells story of 'Motown 25' appearance that made Jackson a solo superstar

Rolling Stone contributing editor Steve Knopper's new book, MJ: The Genius of Michael Jackson (in stores October 6th), is the first narrative biography to deconstruct Jackson's inimitable dance steps, live performances, songwriting method and studio sessions in fine detail — he interviewed more than 400 people close to Jackson, his music and his family. This excerpt shows how Jackson's now-iconic performance on the Motown 25 special took shape.

In 1983, Suzanne de Passe, still Berry Gordy's loyal number two, had an idea to revitalize the famous but fading Motown Records. She pitched Gordy a twenty-fifth-anniversary reunion show. Profits would go to charity. Gordy liked the idea and thought he could talk most of his former stars into it. He was wrong, at least at first. Diana Ross was living a new kind of life — without Gordy. She spent her days hobnobbing with fashion designers like Halston and Calvin Klein, dining at the Four Seasons, hanging out at Studio 54, and vacationing at her new manor in Fairfield, Connecticut. Her first RCA album, Why Do Fools Fall in Love, hit the top ten, and the follow-up, Silk Electric, had gone gold, thanks in part to Michael Jackson's heavy-breathing, finger-snapping contribution on the song "Muscles" (which Michael produced, wrote, and named after his boa constrictor). When de Passe called about Motown 25, Ross declined. But de Passe knew Ross. She went to the press, predicting Ross would show up as a "special guest star." Ross fans became excited, and the singer realized she couldn't back out without looking bad. So she accepted the invitation.

Stevie Wonder said okay, if he could make it back in time from a tour of Africa. Marvin Gaye was in, if Gordy asked him personally. Ross's Lady Sings the Blues costar Richard Pryor, still the world's hottest comedian despite his growing drug problems, agreed to emcee. And Michael Jackson ... he agreed, too, but how he came to do so depends on who tells the story. According to Berry, Jackson felt overexposed on television and was inclined to sit in the audience and silently show his support. So a cowed Gordy begged him.

Motown's Suzee Ikeda, who worked as a liaison between the Jackson 5 and their record label in the old days, tells it differently. It was ten days before the taping when Jermaine Jackson, still a Motown recording artist, began to call her repeatedly.

"Nobody's asked my brothers to do the show!" Jermaine complained. "You're kidding," Ikeda said.

"Suzanne hasn't asked them," he responded.

Ikeda called Gordy and asked permission to go over de Passe's head, to call Michael directly for a commitment. He agreed. When Ikeda and Jackson talked, old Motown friends catching up, she was careful to bring up other subjects before Motown 25. Finally, she said: "Everybody's coming back to do this show. You've got to do this show," she said. "If the Jackson 5, one of the biggest acts in the company, don't come back to do it, it's not going to be the same."

"Okay," Michael said.*

In both Jermaine's recollection and in MJ's autobiography Moonwalk, Michael asked for a solo performance on the spot. Ikeda says it was Gordy who suggested Michael do the song, only privately to Ikeda, without even discussing it with Michael. "I don't think that's a good idea," Ikeda told Gordy. Later, serendipitously, Michael called Ikeda and said, "Berry's going to get mad, but I want to do something — 'Billie Jean.'" Delighted, Ikeda strongly advised Michael not to let the regular live Motown 25 band perform the music — "because they'll never get the groove." Michael and Ikeda thus agreed he would lip-synch his performance to the original track. Ikeda communicated the news to Gordy, who was thrilled.

The dancing itself required no negotiation. Michael would handle everything about that himself. "Nobody else worked with him on it," Ikeda says. "He told the director, he told everybody, how he wanted that stage, what type of lighting he wanted. He told them where to put the spotlight. 'When I put my finger like this ...' He directed them."

Michael often claimed he invented the routine to "Billie Jean" spontaneously, because he had spent so much time rehearsing with his brothers for the show's Motown medley that he neglected everything else. What he did not say was how long he had been thinking about this performance.

The dance Michael chose, the backslide, was hardly new. Bill Bailey, an African-American tap-dancing star, pulled it off as early as the 1950s. Rocker David Bowie does a bit of the move in an early video for "Aladdin Sane." Mimes used it all the time — Marcel Marceau's famous routine "Walking in the Wind" was essentially the backslide by another name, and Robert ******* of ******* and Yarnell learned it from Marceau** himself. James Brown and Bill "Mr. Bojangles" Robinson, both influences on Michael, were among the greats who'd pulled it off. Many dancers would take credit for bestowing the backslide upon Michael Jackson — Damita Jo Freeman of Soul Train makes a credible claim, recalling that her lesson came backstage in Vegas in the late seventies. But it was two young dancers, Casper Candidate and Cooley Jaxson, who taught it to him directly.

In 1979, Casper and Cooley had appeared on Soul Train. They performed a dance called the Boogaloo, named after a street-dancing group, the Electric Boogaloos. For four minutes, dressed in black, they ignored the laws of gravity and physics, pulling off hip thrusts and acrobatic leaps set to MJ's "Workin' Day and Night."

Casper and Cooley aren't sure how their dance clip came to Michael Jackson's attention, but they suspect he watched the show as it aired — it was his song, after all. Some of those moves, particularly the pelvic thrusts and sideways motions that make dancers' legs look like rubber bands, had already landed in the "Beat It" video. As he was preparing for his Motown 25 performance, Michael asked one of his managers to track down the duo. Jaxson, auditioning for Sesame Street Live in San Francisco, flew to Los Angeles, where he met Candidate at a large rehearsal space. A boom box sat on the floor. Michael introduced himself. They talked for five hours. All he wanted to talk about was the backslide. "Where did it come from?" he kept asking. "Where did it start?"

They taught him the move. Unsurprisingly, MJ picked it up quickly. But he didn't think he did. "I can't feel it!" he kept saying.

"I understood that at the time," Cooley recalls. "It's more of a mime type of feel. Like you're making a box, but you're not making a box. If you're doing it, it looks like you're gliding."

Cooley has spent much of his career giving credit to others for the backslide — Bill Bailey, James Brown, ******* and Yarnell. What frustrates him, years later, is that Jackson wasn't similarly aggressive about giving credit to his forebears. In Moonwalk, Michael refers to the move as "a break-dance step, a 'popping' type of thing that black kids had created dancing on street corners in the ghetto." "We kind of ended up being invisible," says Cooley, now in his early fifties. "But we never said anything about it."

The night before the taping of Motown 25: Yesterday, Today, Forever, MJ rehearsed at Hayvenhurst. Katherine and La Toya were accustomed to Michael practicing every Saturday and Sunday in a room above the garage. "I'm sure he was doing the moonwalk up there, but we never knew it," Katherine said. In the kitchen, he played "Billie Jean." "I pretty much stood there and let the song tell me what to do," he recalled. "I kind of let the dance create itself. I really let it talk to me; I heard the beat come in, and I took this spy's hat and started to pose and step, letting the 'Billie Jean' rhythm create the movements. I felt almost compelled to let it create itself. I couldn't help it." Michael obviously had been thinking about 1974's The Little Prince, in which a grown man befriends a magical young boy in a double-breasted peacoat. The great choreographer Bob Fosse shows up as a snake, modeling a half-dozen poses, gestures, and struts MJ would use for years, in the moonwalk and beyond.

Having secured the talent, de Passe and Gordy were able to make a Motown 25 deal with NBC. They booked the Pasadena Civic Auditorium on March 25, 1983. During rehearsals, thirty-eight-year-old Diana Ross showed up in a long, white mink coat, Courvoisier in hand, worrying Gordy and de Passe by declaring she had the stomach flu. But the night of the show, she emerged from her limo glamorous as ever, mugging for photographers. Because the producers wanted young, new talent in the show, they hired British MTV star Adam Ant to perform "Where Did Our Love Go?" in awkward new-wave makeup and what appeared to be a Revolutionary War costume. "Now what Adams Ant had to do with Motown, you tell me. I have no idea," says veteran Motown singer and songwriter Valerie Simpson, upset to this day that a songwriter segment she'd hosted was cut from the program. Ant, though, was intertwined with Motown history. Gordy had once tried to sign him, which led to his spending the day with Michael Jackson and his family at their house on Hayvenhurst. Later, Michael called about the distinctive brocade jacket Ant had worn in the "Kings of the Wild Frontier" video. Ant put MJ in touch with his supplier, and the next thing he knew, Michael was wearing military jackets everywhere. Watching Michael on Motown 25, Ant's concern was simply, "How the **** do you follow that?" Says Ant: "It was like the Beatles on Ed Sullivan, that's what it was."

Michael Jackson and his brothers had taken the stage for the Motown 25 taping in a conquering mood. Jackie wore a bright-green glittery open-collar shirt and black leather pants. Marlon was in a Sgt. Pepper–style topcoat; as a dancer, he had always fed off Michael, but this time he and Jackie came out as dueling dervishes. Jermaine returned to the band and provided an emotional boost. Michael, in particular, seemed moved to have him back. (None of the Jacksons had live microphones except Michael, so when Jermaine sang his bit in "I'll Be There," Michael walked over to share his mike with his brother, and they embraced; it was a beautiful moment of both reclaimed family unity and practiced showbiz.) It was the first time since Vegas that all the Jackson brothers were onstage together, a fact not lost on Michael, who couldn't contain himself when his younger brother, the newest member of the family group, came bounding onstage. "Randy!" he shouted.

Michael ran through "I Want You Back," "Never Can Say Goodbye," and "I'll Be There" exactly as he'd done for fourteen straight years. The Jackson 5 had always exuded an element of contained chaos — Michael had to keep his talent from spilling onto the stage in order to preserve his role within the group. He strutted and stepped in unison with his brothers, sporadically popping in front of them, spinning and crooning. The audience, both that night at the auditorium and a month later, when the show aired on NBC, had every reason to believe this performance would be the show's emotional peak.

Neither the viewers nor the Jackson brothers knew his costume throughout the reunion medley — black jacket covered in sequins (borrowed from his mother), silver lamé shirt, black trousers with high cuffs, white socks, Fred Astaire–style loafers, a white glove on his left hand containing 1,200 rhinestones sewn by hand, and a curly-mullet hairstyle matching the cover of Thriller — was designed not for sentimentality but action. After finishing their Motown medley, the brothers bounded offstage, proud, hugging each other, sipping generously, as always, from the crowd's adoration. Then Michael delivered a speech by Motown 25 scriptwriter Buz Kohan. "Yeah," Michael said, as the applause died down. "Aw. You're beautiful."

The moment begins to resemble the color seeping into The Wizard of Oz — out of the past, into the present. "Yeah," Michael says again. "I have to say, those were the good old days." He speaks in short, declaratory sentences, breathing hard. "I love those songs," he says. "Those were magic moments. All my brothers. Including Jermaine. Those were good songs. I like those songs a lot." Then his tone changes, and Michael looks directly into the camera — he's Elvis Presley, aware of his power. "But especially, I like ..." Somebody in the audience, a kid or a woman, audibly spoils the suspense: "Billie Jean!" Michael doesn't care. He raises his right eyebrow. He's staring straight ahead but not at anything, looking beyond the crowd — "... the new songs."

Music history remembers this speech the way it remembers the throwaway lines Presley, in the studio with his band, delivered in 1954. After halting the bluegrass ballad "Milkcow Blues Boogie," Elvis declared, "Hold it, fellas. That don't move me. Let's get real, real gone for a change." The resulting fast-paced version of "Milkcow" wasn't technically the birth of rock 'n' roll, but listening today, it feels like it. The moment echoed Benny Goodman, onstage in 1935 at Hollywood's Palomar ballroom, initially leading his orchestra in super-slow dinner-party music. When nobody paid attention, he reversed course with Fletcher Henderson's jumping arrangement for "King Porter Stomp." A dance-floor riot ensued and the big-band swing era was born.

Michael reaches down for his black fedora, which resembles the bowler Bob Fosse wore in The Little Prince. His longtime assistant, Nelson P. Hayes, had placed it there while the camera had been focused elsewhere. "He must have made me rehearse that spot twenty times just to make sure that hat was going to be there, where it was supposed to be," Hayes recalls. It's dawning on the old Motown pros gathered at the auditorium just how meticulously Michael had choreographed this moment.

Drums: Bum-bap, bum-bap, bum-bap. Michael twirls to the left. He's posing, hat upside-down in his right hand. He plops the hat on his head. Bass. Michael thrusts his crotch forward, again and again, then kicks his right leg so it's almost horizontal. For the next six seconds, his movements are so quick and fluid and connected that it's almost impossible to deconstruct and identify them. Michael splays his legs. He does more kicks. He holds a pose, then another in the reverse direction. He waves his hat to the right, but it's a basketball head fake, and instead he tosses it offstage to the left. He claps. He tap-dances, glides a little. Synths. Two more thrusts of the crotch, then a hair-combing motion — the suggestion of a rockabilly greaser. At this time, Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly are old men, and "The Band Wagon" and "Singin' in the Rain" seem hopelessly out of fashion in the rock era. Michael is bringing them back — the elegance, the dance tricks that seem like magic. Michael concentrates their moves into tantalizing bursts.

As Michael mouths the first line of "Billie Jean" — "She was more like a beauty queen" — his feet are unable to stop, bouncing left and right. Finally he settles down, eyes closed, concentrating into the microphone, tapping his left foot to the beat. He punctuates certain lines — "she caused a SCENE" — with high kicks, nearly parallel to the floor. Every moment is more intriguing than the next — he plants his foot to spin in a tight circle like he did with the Jackson 5, then holds his fists to his face, as if pleading, like James Brown, before hiking up his pants to display his white socks. For a moment, the camera catches a glimpse of the audience, unusually racially diverse for a concert hall in 1983, blacks and whites clapping together in tuxedos and gowns. The "Billie Jean" guitar solo arrives and recedes.



Finally, as Michael executes the moonwalk, formerly known as the backslide, formerly a dance belonging to the Electric Boogaloos, Cab Calloway, James Brown, Damita Jo Freeman, Casper and Cooley, Jeffrey Daniel, Mr. Bojangles, Bob Fosse, Marcel Marceau, and ******* and Yarnell, a sort of screech erupts from the crowd. "During rehearsals, he never did that. Only when he did the show," recalls Russ Terrana, who as Motown's veteran chief recording engineer was outside in the sound truck, taping Motown 25 for posterity. "My crew just went, 'What the hell was that?' You could hear the audience going, 'Awwww-awwwww!'" Another leg kick, another whoop, another pose on the toes, two more spins, another brief glimpse of the moonwalk, and Michael is done. Is something different about his nose? It looks sculpted, precise, fussy, with thin little nostrils, not big and bold like it used to be. If anybody lingers over this detail, it is lost, for now, in the bigger story about the moonwalk. He bows and he is off. His brothers, mouths open in the wings throughout the performance, recover enough to slap Michael on the back when he returns. Before long, all the Motown stars are huddled around him. "When everybody ran up to congratulate him, it was like he wasn't there. He had an out-of-body experience or something," Valerie Simpson recalls. "He couldn't respond to anybody. He wasn't back to himself yet. He couldn't come down to where he had gone to deal with us. It was just very, very eerie." Afterward, MJ would say he was preoccupied — he had meant to stay on his toes a few ticks longer during the performance, and he felt like he'd failed. Nobody else noticed.


The day after the show aired, on May 16, 1983, Michael Jackson received a call from Fred Astaire. ("Oh, come on," was Michael's first reaction.) Astaire was eighty-four. He had filmed his final movie, Ghost Story, two years earlier. "You're a hell of a mover. Man, you really put them on their asses last night," Fred Astaire told Michael Jackson. "You're an angry dancer. I'm the same way. I used to do the same thing with my cane." It remains a mystery exactly where the anger appears in Astaire's elegant ballroom dancing — his persona in movies is bemused and easygoing — but "Billie Jean" was, in fact, an angry song, reflecting Michael's feelings of fear and distrust for those around him. Michael was also angry at his father, who was still tomcatting around on Katherine and milking the family for cash.

"It was the greatest compliment I had ever received in my life," Jackson would say of Astaire's call, "and the only one I had ever wanted to believe."

After Michael spoke with Fred on the phone, he went into the bathroom and threw up.

"Excerpted from MJ: The Genius of Michael Jackson by Steve Knopper. Copyright © 2015 by Steve Knopper. Reprinted with permission of Scribner, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc."

*In still another version of the story, Jermaine writes in his autobiography that his mother talked Michael into it, as she'd often done on behalf of Michael's brothers. The account ends the same way, with Michael saying, "Okay." But Ikeda doesn't buy it.

**When Marceau died in 2007, MJ told Jet the moonwalk inspiration came not from the mime but from "watching the great, rhythmic, wonderful black children dance around the world."



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/n...first-moonwalk-onstage-20151005#ixzz3nli53lqQ
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
 
An interview from Esquire about the book-might help people decide to purchase/read or not.


http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/music/a38630/michael-jackson-mj-biography/



5 Fascinating Revelations from a New Michael Jackson Biography

It turns out MJ and Prince had a major rivalry.



BY DAN HYMAN



98Shares


  • [*=center] SHARE
    [*=center]EET
    [*=center] PIN
    [*=center] E-MAIL




landscape-1444231077-mj.jpg






<iframe id="google_ads_iframe_/36117602/hdm-esquire/entertainment/music/article/d-v-1_0" name="google_ads_iframe_/36117602/hdm-esquire/entertainment/music/article/d-v-1_0" width="0" height="0" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 100%; border-width: 0px; border-style: initial; vertical-align: bottom; visibility: hidden; height: 0px; width: 0px;"></iframe>


"Maybe I'm just insane," author and Rolling Stone contributing editor Steve Knopper says with a laugh of his motivation for taking on the mammoth task of writing a Michael Jackson biography. "I love tackling big, weighty subjects. Maybe too much so." The challenges of telling the story of the King of Pop, the entire one—from his childhood fame with the Jackson 5 to his untouchable solo career, his child molestation charges to his untimely death—are basically endless. So to help him write MJ: The Genius of Michael Jackson (out this week via Simon & Schuster), the journalist interviewed more than 400 people, each in some way associated with the late pop singer.

To get to the heart of the material in &#8203;MJ, &#8203;Esquire asked Knopper to talk about the stories he learned from his five most insightful interview subjects. Some of the selections will surprise you.
Donald Trump on MJ and Lisa Marie's True Love and Michael's Fall

"I actually spoke with Trump about two months before he announced his candidacy for president. Putting his politics aside, because I have to, he was great. I'm not the first person to have talked to him for a Michael Jackson project. He comes into the story at crucial points. Michael stayed at Trump Tower when he was working on theHIStory: Past, Present, and Future, Book 1 album in New York City. And then there was a key period when Michael and [former wife] Lisa Marie [Presley] had their honeymoon at the big resort that Trump owned, called the Mar-a-Lago, in Florida. So the reason he's important to this story is that he's the closest you have to an eyewitness that Michael and Lisa Marie were perhaps actually in love. Or at least someone who will talk about it. He remembers that they went into the tower—they had this tower they were staying in at the resort—and they would just stay there for days and days. It was a very enclosed area. He said they were clearly in love. But to me, that's not the thing that was most important. He went on these asides. And I just let him talk. He gave me this forest-through-the-trees explanation of Michael: The first 30 years of Michael's life, he was just untouchable. He did everything right: He made all the best music, he made all the business deals, he had all the right people around him. And the last 20 or so years of his life, the reverse happened: He was on drugs, he was surrounding himself with 'yes' men, one business partner after another gave him bad advice, and he wasn't really working on music much anymore. Trump's point was that these are two different people, and they have to be looked at in two different ways. I thought that was pretty insightful."

Michael Jackson's Troubled Childhood at Motown

"I forget her official title at Motown, but Suzee Ikeda was more or less [Motown founder] Berry Gordy's assistant. She originally started at Motown as a singer and put out a couple singles—kind of Diana Ross-style songs. They didn't really go anywhere. Instead, it turned out, she was good at management and helping other people at the company. So eventually she worked into this position at Motown as a kind of liaison between Gordy and the producers and the Jackson 5. She wound up being this soothing figure for Michael. She worked really closely with Michael throughout the entire Motown years in LA. I was proud of myself for finding her. She has no Internet presence at all. She is off the grid in that sense. I tracked down an obituary of some relative she had and she was listed in the survivors. I contacted every single person I could find in that list of relatives and eventually someone got to her and she called me back. I probably talked to her 10 or 15 times, and she was just incredibly helpful. There were certain things she wanted to say and certain things she didn't want to say. But she was the one that told me some great stuff about Michael. Like how he would doodle cartoons in between sessions at Motown. There would be cartoons and caricatures all over the place. And then his producer just threw them all in the trash one day because he was annoyed at some other thing. She told me how Michael would stand on a crate in order to be the same height as his brothers at the microphone. Even more importantly, he was only nine or 10 years old and he needed an older-sibling figure who wasn't his brother. He needed a soothing adult like Suzee who would listen to him. Michael was working a lot with the producer Hal Davis at the time. The sense I got was that Hal's bedside manner with artists was not always amazing. So there would be points where Hal would tell Michael to do something and Michael would turn to Suzee and whisper, 'I don't think I should do it that way.' And Suzee would be like, 'Do it however you want!' She was also the one who held his head while he sang because he liked to dance around but it was screwing up the microphone. All these great, little details."
The Missing Jackson 5 Member on Michael's Practical Jokes

"The Jackson 5 was obviously the five Jackson brothers, but there were also two other guys. One was a guy named Johnny Jackson, who was their drummer throughout the glory years of the Jackson 5. He was not related to them, although at the time they said he was. He's since died. The other was a keyboard player named Ronnie Rancifer. I'm embarrassed to say, when I started this book, I didn't know Ronnie was still alive. I was searching the web and went, Holy crap! Ronnie Rancifer's alive! He was with the Jackson 5 practically their entire run. They hired him to be their keyboardist right around the time that they signed with Motown all the point to where Jermaine [Jackson] left the band and they signed with CBS. He saw all of it. So today he is in this classic-rock covers garage band in Hobart, Indiana, called Shuddup 'N' Drive. I wound up visiting the Gary, Indiana, area and I ended up going and seeing Ronnie's band play at an American Legion Hall on Halloween night, 2012. And there was Ronnie playing keyboards. It's like going to some random jazz place and there is Miles Davis playing trumpet. He is an incredible keyboardist. It was just bizarre. Afterward, he and I drank beer and talked about Motown and the Jackson 5. He was useful for filling in gaps. What I wanted, especially during the Jackson 5 time, was Michael's comedic voice. When he was going out with friends, I wanted to know how he joked with them or with his brothers. People always say Michael was a practical jokester. Well, what kind of jokes did he play? Ronnie filled in a lot of that stuff. He told me if you were in the Jackson 5 van touring the country, Michael was the guy who was going to make fun of you the harshest. If you were wearing new glasses, he'd go, 'Man, you got microscopes on!' He would put the bucket of water up on the door and it would spill on you when you walked in the room."

The Insane Shoot for Michael Jackson's Military-Inspired Video

"Rupert Wainwright is a longtime British video director. He had directed a crappy kids movie, and he even acknowledged it was crappy. It was a dud. It tanked. But Michael somehow loved this movie. So one night, Michael's people called Rupert and said, 'Michael wants to see you at Neverland [Ranch].' Rupert flew in on a helicopter. Michael ended up enlisting Rupert as the director for the HIStory teaser video. They shot it in Budapest. That was the infamous video where Michael is sort of this dictator figure. In Michael's mind, he was this beloved Dalai Lama-type figure, but if you watch it today, there's a little bit of this fascist imagery that people were concerned about. The video shoot is just an epic story. This is before CGI, so they needed to get hundreds of soldiers to wear the same uniform and march in formation throughout Budapest. Some of them, though, right in the middle of the shoot, had to be pressed into military duty for the war between Croatia and Serbia in order to protect their own borders. At the last minute, all the troops Wainwright had hired were not available to him. So they had to find some local police-academy cadets instead. They were all set to do it, but the time they were supposed to shoo the video, the cadets were all taking their police-academy exams. So Rupert and his people had to pull up in front of the exam-testing facility and as soon as the cadets were done, they hopped in the van and immediately went to shoot the video. He just had a bunch of great stories like that. It was one story after the other. But that was Michael: Anyone who worked with him had some elaborate, crazy story to tell."

[video]https://youtu.be/bELemyiPzAY[/video]


will.i.am on the Rivalry Between MJ and Prince

"He was in an interesting position with Michael. Because Will was famous by the time he started working with Michael, and he also got to him late in Michael's career. But the two of them, from what I can tell, seemed to have a pretty close connection. You don't realize this now, but there was a period after Michael's [child molestation] trial where he was bouncing around Europe. Will actually flew out to Ireland and met Michael at this ranch he was staying at, and they worked on music together. They really bonded. Will got to know him. Later, Will encountered Michael in [Las] Vegas. My favorite story Will told me involves Prince and the rivalry he had with Michael. Nobody really quite knows the full extent of their rivalry, and I think both of those guys had an interest in keeping it somewhat mysterious because they are both mysterious dudes. But when Prince was doing his Vegas residency around late 2006, Michael was living in Vegas. Will was a guest artist at the Prince residency, but he was also friends with Michael. So Will arranged it for Michael to be a guest in the audience at Prince's show. No one knew it really, but Prince knew it. There was a point during the show where Prince was playing bass and he came out into the audience with this giant bass—he knew where Michael was sitting—and he walked right up to Michael and started playing bass in Michael's face. Like aggressive slap bass. The next morning, Will went over to Michael's house for breakfast, and they're talking about Prince and the show. And then Michael goes, 'Will, why do you think Prince was playing bass in my face?' Michael was outraged. And then started going on. 'Prince has always been a meanie. He's just a big meanie. He's always been not nice to me. Everybody says Prince is this great legendary Renaissance man and I'm just a song-and-dance man, but I wrote "Billie Jean" and I wrote "We Are the World" and I'm a songwriter too.' All this disrespect for Prince came out from Michael that morning. One day, I hope Prince sits down and tells the truth about everything between him and Michael. Before I die, I want to know what the full deal was between the two of them."&#8203;



 
Last edited:
Dear goodness. I picked out one sentence to read and it was completely false! The HIStory teaser was not 'in the days before CGI'. That's hopelessly wrong.
 
Last edited:
Just read the DB Anderson review and glad that he/she picked up on the same thing that I was griping about a few pages back.
The moonwalk story and this whole deal with Casper and Cooley and just conveniently leaving Jeffrey Daniels out of the picture. And acting like Michael invented it, gave them no credit (the 3 kids referred to in Moonwalk is them and I've always known that) or credit to the dancing in the past.
I've seen this jealousy stuff in videos on YouTube with Casper and Cooley. Ridiculous.

Also suddenly Susie Ikeda is the most important person in Motown and don't even mention Suzanne?

One thing I've always noticed about Michael's life story. Everybody always seems to think they were the only ones who made him successful, or the only one who was his true friend, or only one....etc etc.

And Anderson says the same thing about the writing: perfect description: wooden.

Edited to add: just saw the Amazon reviews and read his speculation about his kids and his family. Totally uncalled for. That alone is enough to boycott the book.
 
Last edited:
Just read the DB Anderson review and glad that he/she picked up on the same thing that I was griping about a few pages back.
The moonwalk story and this whole deal with Casper and Cooley and just conveniently leaving Jeffrey Daniels out of the picture. And acting like Michael invented it, gave them no credit (the 3 kids referred to in Moonwalk is them and I've always known that) or credit to the dancing in the past.
I've seen this jealousy stuff in videos on YouTube with Casper and Cooley. Ridiculous.

Also suddenly Susie Ikeda is the most important person in Motown and don't even mention Suzanne?

One thing I've always noticed about Michael's life story. Everybody always seems to think they were the only ones who made him successful, or the only one who was his true friend, or only one....etc etc.

And Anderson says the same thing about the writing: perfect description: wooden.

Knopps said it himself in that RS snippet:
And Michael Jackson ... he agreed, too, but how he came to do so depends on who tells the story.

Lets say he interviews 10 people and gets 10 different sides of the story, then he has to pick one of them in the book, and hey voila...we have 1 account of from possible 10. Everything depends on who tells the story and which one he picks to his book. Somebody who is not MJ fan has no chance in hell to get any book of MJ right, because they are relying on people, and those people have their own agenda, but authors rarely knows about that.
 
^^having their own agenda is right. I just find it amazing that an author can't get this right. I didn't worry about Sullivan's book so much bc the 3 interviews he gave were so ridiculous that nobody in their right mind would buy his book- but Genius in the title of this one would make more people inclined to buy it. And that makes me mad.
 
But so far I haven't seen it making a big splash. Not even in fan circles. I think only fans really buy MJ books any more or not even them because fans are tired of these books which psycho-analyze him or focus on his private life (or whatever the author's own version of his private life is) etc. I also think fans tend to know more about MJ than these authors so what new can these books really tell us? They just make us upset about the inaccuracies.

I think Michael's music speaks for itself. He doesn't need books to explain it to people to make them like it. Especially not by people who do not seem to appreciate or understand him as an artist anyway.

I hoped this book would focus on his art, but instead it seems we got another Taraborelli wannabe. I am just sad for the missed opportunities.
 
Will people ever learn MJ fans don't put up with crap and BS anymore? Haven't authors realized if they want a book to be successful they need the fans' support?
 
I have a copy but I haven't started it yet. Kinda reluctant. :puke:
 
Some MJ fan pages are recommending to not buy and avoid that book. The author claimed he wouldn't use tabloid sources but besides interviewing Demon Diamond, Knoppler questioned Michael's physical, mental health and the paternity of his children, yeah no tabloid sources, RIGHT! He couldn't get more tabloid-ish and trashier than that asking myself, what the hell of those issues have to do with Michael's genius? With a misleading title as such, you'd think the book would focus on his artistry but it's just another salacious piece of trash not worth your money and time.
 
Shoot me. I bought this pile of turd on a whim, and I want my money back. It's simply a rehash of Taraborrelli's book.
 
Rhilo;4111656 said:
Shoot me. I bought this pile of turd on a whim, and I want my money back. It's simply a rehash of Taraborrelli's book.


At least he is convinced of MJ's innocence.

A: Most of the books that have come out about Michael, and there are some very good ones, have been like, "I'm going to get this guy. I'm going to nail down all the weird details and not let him squirm under these half-truths." And of course I wanted to tell the truth, too. But my feeling was that I didn't want to get this guy. I wanted it to be sympathetic to what his life was like. But I didn't expect to be so thoroughly convinced of his innocence on child molestation charges.


Q: What convinced you?


A: It's media-driven, because he was just crushed by tabloids and cable TV news in the post-O.J. era. People went into those events and into his trial &#8212; and this is documented &#8212; saying "He's guilty, we're going to get this guy." I interviewed unbiased journalists with the same observations. He was declared innocent by a nonpartial jury in 2005, which I do not think was scammed or bought in any way. The prosecution against him was very aggressive and well-funded. And I just don't think the evidence is there to overcome that ruling. The people who accused him are the wrong people.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/...makes-bid-state-tourism-funds?source=infinite

I didn't read the book.

Does he go into the connection between the Chandlers, the Neverland 5, Francia, Dimond and Victor Gutierez?
I really would like to see someone finally pointing out the obvious: a pedo advocate pig is the common source of the horrible pedo tales involving Michael, including Safechuck's and Chandler' stories. I bet the duck butter/lights thing also came from Gutierez.
 
So, here's a new review on Steve Knopper's new book in USA Today over the weekend. I don't think I will be buying this one either since all the excerpts I've read so far have been rather flat and wooden. I know everybody here hates Taraborrelli stuff, and I probably would too if I had started at one of his revision books rather than the first one back in 92-but he has a real gift for taking real interviews, and real mag/newspaper articles, and real books written by the Jacksons themselves and re-writing the information in a way that makes you feel like he (and the reader) was there. Later on, his sources were tabloid based-so I'm not ever going to look at those.

Back to this-I bolded the part of the interview that I took exception to, and I'm wondering am I just too sensitive. He says that Michael boasted about sleeping with kids, and although I do know it's the Ed Bradley interview he's talking about, I don't remember anything about it that sounded boastful. I do remember him truthfully answering, but also explaining that there was no harm in it, etc. etc. etc. And him being hurt and defensive that anyone would think otherwise.

Has anybody bought it or read it yet?





New book on Michael Jackson is a thriller

Gene Seymour , Special for USA TODAY 2:02 p.m. EDT October 31, 2015


MJ: The Genius of Michael Jackson


by Steve Knopper
(Scribner)
in Music/Dance
Buy Now
USA TODAY Rating



Steve Knopper is on a rescue mission: To restore Michael Jackson&#8217;s legacy as a significant artist.


Go elsewhere, in other words, if what you want from Knopper&#8217;s MJ: The Genius of Michael Jackson is to wallow in the lurid farrago of indictments, trial records and baffling behavior that characterized Jackson&#8217;s final years. Not that this book ignores that stuff. Indeed, Knopper's meticulous accounting in the book&#8217;s last chapters all but mires the narrative in a swampy crawl toward an unbearably sad, stunning denouement.


But Knopper, a contributing editor at Rolling Stone who is more conscientious historian than tabloid newshound, only deals with whatever can be substantiated. OK, so did Jackson molest children? Concludes Knopper: &#8220;All evidence points to no &#8211; although sleeping in bed with children and boasting of it on international television did not qualify him for the Celebrity Judgment Hall of Fame.&#8221;




That phrase, as much as any other, exemplifies the book&#8217;s clear-eyed composure regarding its endlessly complicated, weirdly compelling subject. It should also alert readers that Knopper&#8217;s principal objective is to re-establish Jackson&#8217;s historic stature, six years after his death at age 50, as the greatest song-and-dance man of the 20th century&#8217;s latter half (Fred Astaire owning the other); a global cultural phenomenon whose long-range impact on pop music was matched only by those of the Beatles and Elvis Presley; and a creative visionary whose meticulous studio coups were as notable as those of Brian Wilson, the Beach Boys&#8217; similarly eccentric &#8211; and similarly troubled &#8211; genius savant. Knopper doesn&#8217;t use that latter analogy, though his mode of analysis makes it easy to make such connections on our own.


Through reminiscences and observations Knopper gathers from more than 400 interviews, MJ deftly recounts the familiar aspects of the story, which begins with Joe Jackson, a cold, hard Gary, Ind., steelworker, pressing five of his talented young children into the rhythm-and-blues circuit. Those magnetic &#8220;Jackson 5&#8221; kids become child stars of the Motown music stable by the early 1970s, though Knopper writes that even in those years Michael was distancing himself from his brothers. There are anecdotes scattered throughout the early chapters of the younger Michael incessantly drawing pictures and closely scrutinizing dancers, singers and even mimes &#8211; which is how he all but patented the Robot dance.


The turning point of Jackson&#8217;s life was his partnership with jazz-pop impresario-arranger Quincy Jones, who produced the three signature albums of Jackson&#8217;s solo recording career, 1979&#8217;s Off the Wall, 1982&#8217;s Thriller and 1987&#8217;s Bad. As Knopper&#8217;s book cannily elucidates, it was Jackson&#8217;s own painstaking, mostly intuitive creative process that helped shape these masterworks &#8211; and those that followed.


&#8220;He couldn&#8217;t play an instrument,&#8221; one studio keyboardist who worked on Thriller recalls. &#8220;He could barely play a few notes on a keyboard. He&#8217;d come up with not only elaborate songs but elaborate arrangements in his head and stick to them&#8230;He&#8217;d keep his vision and be as patient as he could until he&#8217;d finally say, &#8216;Yeah, that&#8217;s it.&#8217;&#8221;


Knopper shows similar critical and reportorial savvy in assessing Jackson&#8217;s creative peaks and valleys: The epochal &#8220;Billie Jean&#8221; moonwalk on the 1983 Motown 25 TV spectacular which prompted a morning-after congratulatory phone call to Jackson from Astaire, who told him, &#8220;You&#8217;re an angry dancer. I&#8217;m the same way&#8221;; the controversial trio of albums, 1991&#8217;s confrontational Dangerous, 1995&#8217;s grandiloquent HIStory and 2001&#8217;s perplexing Invincible, all of which received mixed notices when released, all of which Knopper makes persuasive cases for; the Jackson-Jones 1984 collaboration, &#8220;We Are the World,&#8221; whose messianic gathering of popular music royalty was considerably more impressive than the &#8220;cloying, self-aggrandizing&#8221; song it recorded on behalf of Ethiopian relief.


MJ: The Genius of Michael Jackson does not attempt to condemn or ennoble its subject. Nor does it pretend to answer all your questions about Jackson, who one suspects was as much a mystery to himself as he was to others. But among the book&#8217;s many answers that can&#8217;t be questioned is the resonating impact of Jackson's boundary-shattering talent.


MJ: The Genius of Michael Jackson


By Steve Knopper


Scribner, 438 pp.


3.5 stars out of four
 
*sigh* another MJ book, and all the fans want to know is : "is it positive or negative?"

How about asking instead "do we LEARN anything? Is there new info from new interviews?"

I don't want or need "positive". I need INFORMATIVE and FACTUAL. One of these days, an actual historian, following the historical method, will write a a definitive biography about MJ. I can already picture the hundreds of negative reviews from fans on Amazon : "Don't buy it, it claims MJ had plastic surgery, when we all know he only ever had two procedures done on his nose so he can hit higher notes!".
 
*sigh* another MJ book, and all the fans want to know is : "is it positive or negative?"

How about asking instead "do we LEARN anything? Is there new info from new interviews?"

I don't want or need "positive". I need INFORMATIVE and FACTUAL. One of these days, an actual historian, following the historical method, will write a a definitive biography about MJ. I can already picture the hundreds of negative reviews from fans on Amazon : "Don't buy it, it claims MJ had plastic surgery, when we all know he only ever had two procedures done on his nose so he can hit higher notes!".

No, that's not what I said. I am actually looking forward to that historical biography that you refer to and the closest one I have found so far is the Taraborelli 92 one. The reason I don't think I personally would like this Knopper book isn't especially because of the content-but all the excerpts I have read have been rather dull and boring. The best I can say about his style is flat and wooden.

I asked specifically about the "boasting" comment in the interview only because I was wondering if I was too sensitive to that word in that scenario-the facts are exactly what Michael said-but there has to be speculation too-what did Michael mean by that? Because if that's what Knopper thought when HE watched that interview, and I thought something completely opposite, then I may not care for the book. All authors put their own speculation in biographies-trying to get into their subject's heads-at least the good ones do-and that would be a very different speculation from my own and I would probably not agree with him and therefore not enjoy it or learn anything. I would want to be somewhat on the same page as the author, or he would have to convince me to be so.

I grew up reading biographies and autobiographies, and I've read great ones and really bad ones-Like I said, I'm looking forward to the one about Michael that's interesting and informative-as well as being entertaining and factual. I think that's a little hard on Michael's fans that they live in a "Disney dream world" and don't think he had plastic surgeries-Personally, I think he counted two because he didn't count the ones where they repaired damage. But that's my personal opinion.
 
All this notion about fans rejecting books because MJ is not portrayed as a saint is such a fallacy.

In the other thread about the "Making of Michael" book there were lenghty explanations given about what problems fans have with what they have read so far (extracts and reviews). The problem wasn't "oh it is not positive so I am not buying it". The problem was that - based on the quoted review at least - the book's overall impression about MJ contradicted everything that we have read or heard from these very same collaborators from other sources. So that leads to accuracy questions, not positive vs. negative questions. In his last post the reviewer somewhat clarified that the book is not quite how he portrayed it in his review, so maybe there is still hope, we will see. This thread isn't about that book, but I mentioned it here, because fans of that book keep accusing people with certain objections wanting a book that only says positive things about MJ and that accusation popped up here again and it is just not true.

When people criticize a book they usually do have accuracy objections, or they have other objections, like writing style or whether the book offers anything new, whether the sources it extensively uses are credible or not etc. etc. All those objections are discussed in lenght in these threads so to reduce fans' objections and concerns to "oh you just don't like it because it doesnt't portray MJ as a saint" is just utterly ufair and untrue.

And who will tell you what is "factual"? In MJ's world a lot of things claimed about him are not factual and disputed even among fans. What one fan thinks is factual not necessarily accepted as such by another fan and there is no way to tell who is right. I think when you are an MJ fan for long enough you do learn not to expect one ultimate Bible on MJ that contains the truth and nothing but the truth about everything. If you are waiting for that book, that will probably never happen. People who are interviewed for books can have their own biases and agendas. Authors can have their biases and agendas. Etc. The best is always to read several sources, analyze those stories (and think for yourself, do not necessarily accept everything that is spoon fed to you in a book) and try to make out what could be closest to the truth from that.
 
I haven't even made it through the first chapter yet, but I have to say I like how the author provides some family history/genealogy about Joe, something I personally haven't seen in other biographies. I also keep wondering where Knopper got this information, so I also read the footnotes and source material.
 
I haven't even made it through the first chapter yet, but I have to say I like how the author provides some family history/genealogy about Joe, something I personally haven't seen in other biographies. I also keep wondering where Knopper got this information, so I also read the footnotes and source material.

Isn't that the information from Joseph's book?

Here: http://www.truemichaeljackson.com/family/ancestors/

[url]http://www.truemichaeljackson.com/family/

[/URL]
 
All this notion about fans rejecting books because MJ is not portrayed as a saint is such a fallacy.

In the other thread about the "Making of Michael" book there were lenghty explanations given about what problems fans have with what they have read so far (extracts and reviews). The problem wasn't "oh it is not positive so I am not buying it". The problem was that - based on the quoted review at least - the book's overall impression about MJ contradicted everything that we have read or heard from these very same collaborators from other sources. So that leads to accuracy questions, not positive vs. negative questions. In his last post the reviewer somewhat clarified that the book is not quite how he portrayed it in his review, so maybe there is still hope, we will see. This thread isn't about that book, but I mentioned it here, because fans of that book keep accusing people with certain objections wanting a book that only says positive things about MJ and that accusation popped up here again and it is just not true.

When people criticize a book they usually do have accuracy objections, or they have other objections, like writing style or whether the book offers anything new, whether the sources it extensively uses are credible or not etc. etc. All those objections are discussed in lenght in these threads so to reduce fans' objections and concerns to "oh you just don't like it because it doesnt't portray MJ as a saint" is just utterly ufair and untrue.

And who will tell you what is "factual"? In MJ's world a lot of things claimed about him are not factual and disputed even among fans. What one fan thinks is factual not necessarily accepted as such by another fan and there is no way to tell who is right. I think when you are an MJ fan for long enough you do learn not to expect one ultimate Bible on MJ that contains the truth and nothing but the truth about everything. If you are waiting for that book, that will probably never happen. People who are interviewed for books can have their own biases and agendas. Authors can have their biases and agendas. Etc. The best is always to read several sources, analyze those stories (and think for yourself, do not necessarily accept everything that is spoon fed to you in a book) and try to make out what could be closest to the truth from that.
Such a great post and so true about biographies and autobiographies--besides the author's and sources' biases and agendas, you also have the reader's own personal experiences and relationships and thoughts interpreting the material. So it's better to read lots of researched sources, mash them up, to get to what you think is true.
 
And I confess...I did not read Joseph's book, obviously. :lol:

I really, really, really want to write something special about Mike and publish it one day, doing just as you describe, barbee. It's taking forever. :(
 
And I confess...I did not read Joseph's book, obviously. :lol:

I really, really, really want to write something special about Mike and publish it one day, doing just as you describe, barbee. It's taking forever. :(
I believe you can do it and I look forward to that day.
Glad you're reading this book too-so we can get a good review. :)
 
Here is another excerpt from Knopper's book from an Australian newspaper-it hit my newsfeed last night. It's his rundown of the Bashir interview and people he talked to about it.

I agree with him on some points, and some I don't. I do agree that Michael had such a sympathetic and receptive response to his Oprah interview that he was determined to get his US audience back-and he felt like the only way to do it was to charm the audience with the sad stories of his childhood and reveal more of his personal world, even if it was exaggerated for the cameras. Up to that point, we had always known Michael to be proud and strong, and even if he had a rough childhood, he wouldn't have changed one second of it. I always felt that his childhood was "the best of times and the worst of times", and that he had showbusiness in his blood, and was also a rebel with a cause. But I think he thought all of us just wanted to hear certain things about how sad it was, and how deprived he was, and not any of the good, strong, defiant stuff, like how bad he wanted to succeed, and how hard he worked to achieve his own dream.

I think that's why he did both the Bashir interview as well as the Private Home Movies.

I think it's oversimplifying it by saying you have young friends because you lost your own childhood and want to recreate it. I personally thought it was way more than that. As somebody who wanted to be a mom from about five years old (later on added teacher and Disney animator) I could relate to how important kids can be to you. Especially when you are shy and insecure with people your own age. (in personal situations, not work)

I think anybody who spends time with kids or have their own kids can understand how ALIVE you can feel being around them and soaking in their joy, and wonder at discovering the world, and the wide eyed questions they ask, and the funny things they say and do, and you really feel like you can do anything. I think that's why he calls them his great inspiration.

They make you forget your own personal problems, and they revitalize you-re-energize you-you feel like you can do anything in the world. Because they act like you can.

Also, when he brought kids on tour with him, I think the real reason was to recreate the good times he used to have with his brothers on tour. They were all cooped up and trapped in their hotels for most of their youth, and he was going through it again-and why not have kids around to have pillow fights with, food fights with, throw water balloons with, and best of all, would want to go to amusement parks in cities you had a show at. He missed those days with his brothers. Better than going crazy by yourself. Not to mention that I can only think of about five adults in his life that didn't want something from him besides just his company.


One of the things I do disagree with is Knopper's assessment that the public's goodwill extended through the "shopping trip" in Vegas-I always thought that even though that was a "show," it was a big mistake on his part. In fact, I will always think that entire interview was a big mistake from the get-go, and as intuitive as Michael was, and distrustful of people as he was, I don't know how this interview even happened. Even without the sinister voice-overs that were added later, the lines of questioning that Bashir pelted him with, would have made me pull the plug almost immediately.

I also remember him talking about sleeping on the floor, don't remember saying it was OK to sleep with kids-is that when he was talking about giving your bed? Wasn't it something about giving the best bed to guests or maybe I had tuned it out at the point.

I know Michael admired Princess Diana like crazy, and that was maybe all he needed to stick it out with Bashir-but I saw her interview years later, and I remember the repercussions from it-he revealed the problems that she and Charles were having, led straight to them not only airing dirty laundry but getting a divorce, and made her an absolute target for the paps and news tabloids that she had protection from before-I totally blame Bashir for Diana's death, actually.
I wish somebody like me had filled him in or reminded him of the aftermath of her interview.

Anyway, here it is:






The interview that ruined Michael Jackson



NOVEMBER 5, 201510:33AM


8bbb4d3d4395cf2685183632d9cf733f

It&#8217;s hard to comprehend the naivety of Michael Jackson, until you see him being interviewed with a 12-year-old boy resting his head on his shoulder. This documentary would be the beginning of the end.

THE end of Michael Jackson begins with a 10-year-old boy who had a 7.2kg tumour in his abdomen and lesions in his lungs.

In the early 2000s, Gavin Arvizo was living with his mother Janet, his father David, his 13-year-old sister Davellin, and his nine-year-old brother Star in an East Los Angeles studio apartment. He underwent chemotherapy for a year, which caused him to lose much of his hair and made him so frail that people gasped when they saw him. Doctors told his family to prepare for his funeral.
The Arvizos had famous and influential friends. Before he got sick, Gavin and his siblings attended a summer camp at the Laugh Factory, a comedy club that opened in 1979 and went on to book just about every major stand-up &#8212; Redd Foxx, David Letterman, Jon Stewart, Sarah Silverman. The club&#8217;s founder, Jamie Masada, was a philanthropist in addition to a businessman, and he held a summer comedy camp for underprivileged kids.
The Arvizos became a sort of personal charity for several comedians. Gavin gave Masada a list of famous people he wanted to meet &#8212; comedians Chris Tucker and Adam Sandler and Michael Jackson &#8212; and the Laugh Factory founder dutifully spent hours working his contacts, including someone who gave him Quincy Jones&#8217;s office number.
Some of the savvy stars who took these calls perceived the story of this sweet family with the sick child had cracks in its foundation. Jay Leno said he detected something &#8220;scripted&#8221; about the voicemails Gavin left for him. Others, such as writer-producer Louise Palanker, were touched by their story. She befriended the family, arriving at the Arvizos&#8217; apartment one Christmas with a Sony PlayStation and a microwave oven.
Using his famous contacts, Masada landed a phone number to Neverland. Soon MJ was making his first of many calls to Gavin at the hospital. One day in 2000, a limo arrived to pick up the entire Arvizo family to take them to the ranch. The kids spent the night in a guest room; Janet and her husband, David, a grocery warehouse employee, were in a nearby room facing a lake.
At first, Gavin&#8217;s father didn&#8217;t want him to ride on the rides, because he had just had surgery, but Gavin talked him into it. The kids played in Michael&#8217;s arcade, drove his go-carts, and toured the zoo and the movie theatre on his grounds that seemed to go on forever in the perfect California weather.
The kids grew close to Michael Jackson. Michael called Gavin &#8220;Doo-Doo Head&#8221; and &#8220;Apple Head&#8221; and nicknamed his brother Star &#8220;Blow Hole&#8221;. The family became a ubiquitous presence at Neverland, indulging in the staff help, high-class meals, and luxurious bedrooms.
&#8220;The kids genuinely liked Michael, but I also remember people taking care of the mom &#8212; spending time with her, giving her money,&#8221; recalls Christian Robinson, Jackson&#8217;s videographer at the time.
One day, Michael asked Gavin Arvizo if he still wanted to be an actor. Gavin said he did. Michael told him a British broadcaster, Martin Bashir, was on the way to Neverland and would like to interview Gavin and his siblings. &#8220;I&#8217;m going to put you in the movies,&#8221; he told him. &#8220;And this is your audition. Okay?&#8221; Gavin agreed.
00c55933ba294fb27f04a07312884b85

Michael Jackson with Gavin Arvizo at Neverland ranch in scene from TV documentary "Living with Michael Jackson".Source:News Limited



Over his 18-year career, Bashir, a British journalist, had interviewed numerous high-profile celebrities, including Princess Diana. He spent five years trying to score an interview with Michael Jackson.
&#8220;Michael adored Princess Diana ... and when Bashir knocked on my door to ask me to introduce Michael to him, he showed me a crumpled letter he carried in his wallet &#8212; a thank-you letter from Princess Diana,&#8221; says Michael&#8217;s friend Uri Geller, who introduced MJ to Bashir and calls it &#8220;my devastating mistake&#8221;,
Michael granted approval to Bashir, who at the time was working for ITV, the UK&#8217;s biggest network, to visit him at Neverland, as well as at his posh suite in Las Vegas.
1a88ab040e193e10bddfeb1eaa87b7a4

Journalist Martin Bashir interviewing Michael Jackson in a scene from &#8220;Living with Michael Jackson&#8221;.Source:News Limited



Filming began in late 2002 and lasted through January 14, 2003. Living with Michael Jackson came out in February, almost exactly 10 years after Michael&#8217;s big Oprah interview. For much of the first hour of the episode, which drew 15 million viewers when it first aired on British television, Michael attempted to seduce the camera and charm the interviewer, as he&#8217;d done repeatedly since he was a kid.
He told the old stories, like the one about yearning to play with the kids in the park across the street from his Jackson 5 studio, and the one about how his musical inspiration arrived as a gift from God. Early in the episode, Bashir dutifully played the wide-eyed journalist, cowed by Neverland, gleefully racing Michael in a go-cart.
Slowly, almost undetectable, Bashir&#8217;s tone shifted from bemusement to scolding incredulity. &#8220;You never want to grow up?&#8221; he asked. &#8220;No,&#8221; Michael said. &#8220;I am Peter Pan.&#8221; Bashir corrected him: &#8220;You&#8217;re Michael Jackson.&#8221;
At this point it was clear, to both Michael and the audience, that this interviewer wasn&#8217;t empathetic Oprah. &#8220;I&#8217;m Peter Pan at heart,&#8221; Michael clarified.
Over time, as Bashir&#8217;s tone continued to change, Michael&#8217;s people began to piece together what the interviewer was doing. At one point, driving with MJ in Berlin, Dieter Wiesner, his manager, came to believe Bashir was asking &#8220;really, really bad questions&#8221;, and put his hand over the camera to stop the interview.
In some portions of Living with Michael Jackson, Michael came across more sympathetically than ever. He seemed prepared, rehearsed, suppressing sobs when detailing the iron cords and belts his father used on him and his brothers. The goodwill he generated from this portion extended through the shopping section of the show.
In Vegas, where Michael spent months at a high-end hotel because &#8220;it&#8217;s a fun place to visit&#8221;, Bashir couldn&#8217;t comprehend Michael racking up $500,000 on a couple of high-end urns or $89,000 on a chess set. He seemed to say: Can you believe this guy? But the viewing audience remained on Michael&#8217;s side.
Then Michael spent the last half-hour dismantling this goodwill. Bashir was confrontational &#8212; kind of a jerk, really &#8212; but his personality was far overshadowed by the insane language Michael used to describe himself and his lifestyle.
He stared straight into the camera and lied about his facial surgery. Cheek implants? &#8220;No!&#8221; Dimple in chin? &#8220;Oh, God!&#8221; Reconstructed eyelids? &#8220;It&#8217;s stupid! None of it is true! They made it up!&#8221; Bashir asked whether Debbie Rowe had been upset to hand over Paris so quickly after she was born. &#8220;She said, &#8216;Go right ahead,&#8217;&#8221; Michael claimed.
He said he swaddled Paris immediately after birth, placenta and all, and rushed her home in a towel. &#8220;They told me it was okay!&#8221;
Bashir was an eyewitness to one pivotal event in MJ history. In November 2002, Jackson had flown to Berlin for the annual Bambi Awards. He brought his entourage, including manager Wiesner and nanny Rwaramba, to a fourth-floor hotel room.
Fans began to buzz outside, and Michael made one of the worst snap decisions of his career. He seized his infant son, Prince Michael II, underneath the armpits, and displayed him to the fans below.
ed723f1ef13ca0b5298a78bfd32936a5

This surely has to be the worst move of Michael Jackson&#8217;s career.Source:News Corp Australia



He held Prince tightly &#8212; as he would later say repeatedly on camera &#8212; but his mistake was in displaying the baby on the outside rather than the inside of the balcony barrier. The incident lasted less than three seconds, but once paparazzi developed their film, the image became damning, iconic, the perfect clip to kick off the nightly news and the front page of the National Enquirer.
Michael appeared to be the most monstrous celebrity father ever. Bashir said in his TV narration months later: &#8220;I was worried. There was a manic quality about him that I had never seen before.&#8221; Wiesner, who was in the room at the time, didn&#8217;t catch any of this dark subtext. &#8220;For us, it was not something special,&#8221; he says. &#8220;Next day, we realised this disaster.&#8221;
Finally, Bashir delivered the crescendo. Capturing Michael at home in Neverland, Bashir zoomed in on 12-year-old cancer survivor Gavin Arvizo, who gazed in a fond, babyish way toward Michael and placidly rested his head on his older friend&#8217;s shoulder.
ce4ecce9b006146119068b09edc50038

The final straw. 12-year-old Gavin rests his head on Michael Jackson&#8217;s shoulder during the interview.Source:News Limited



He seemed as comfortable as a 12-year-old boy with his head on Michael Jackson&#8217;s shoulder could be. Gavin was giddy and fast-talking. He started to ramble: &#8220;I was, like, &#8216;Michael, you can sleep in the bed,&#8217; and he was like, &#8216;No, no, you sleep in the bed,&#8217; and I was like, &#8216;No, no, no, you sleep in the bed.&#8217; And then he said, &#8216;Look, if you love me, then you&#8217;ll sleep in the bed.&#8217; I was like, &#8216;Oh, man.&#8217; So I finally slept in the bed.&#8221;
Michael chose the floor &#8212; an important detail that might have allowed him to escape the interview unscathed. But instead of emphasising this point, he insisted to Bashir that a 44-year-old man sleeping in a bed with children who are not in his family was the most natural thing in the world.
c816de07fd4ed038b3e5d727b8c9afce

This is an extract from MJ: The Genius of Michael Jackson, by Steve Knopper, published by Simon and Schuster Australia, RRP $39.99.Source:Supplied



This is an extract from MJ: The Genius of Michael Jackson, by Steve Knopper, published by Simon and Schuster Australia, RRP $39.99.






http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/books-magazines/the-interview-that-ruined-michael-jackson/story-fna50uae-1227596560366
 
Last edited:
Back
Top