When such a so-called "documentary" is being shown around the world, there is someone on the cast who can never speak again. His former photos and audio were randomly cut and inserted in any paragraphs the director wanted. As a king of pop music, this documentary did not even ask him what he meant by the background music.
If he was still around, I don't think he would agree with his life being arranged this way. If they speak, he will not necessarily "defend" himself, but he will most likely express his attitude towards this matter truthfully.
But the film didn't even interview anyone around him, his family? friend? Colleagues you have worked with? His lawyer... these people are still there! Why do you have to unilaterally label it "child sexual abuse"? As an audience, I care more about whether what I see is real or not. I don't want to be influenced by anyone. If this film has enough evidence to prove that mj is such a person, then I will definitely resist, But this film is too one-sided and biased.
Anyone who has worked in the media knows that the media should be an impartial third party. When reporting an event, it should be without any emotion and give both parties a chance to speak. Even if someone is killed, the media will try their best to find the family members of the perpetrator and ask about the situation. What is the reason for the interview? The media are only responsible for recording and presenting the process of this matter, because they cannot represent anyone, the victims, the responsible party, or the general public. The responsibility of the media is to present the truth and let the masses judge for themselves.
Therefore, this film does not qualify.
View more about Leaving Neverland reviews
