Photos
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Featured review
I saw this on the BBC iPlayer, the BBC which prides itself on providing unbiased and factual content.
It was neither impartial nor accurate. I'd say don't bother watch it.
It starts well with a good retrospective on the singer's earlier life and career. Then as we reach the end of the 80s, it claims that was when Jackson started bleaching his skin, and it all goes down from there.
If you're a journalist reporting on trials and accusations and you do your job - i.e. You investigate and go to the source, like legal documents and court transcripts - you cannot come to the conclusions expressed in this programme, it is not possible.
The director either did not do his job or he had an agenda. He clearly appears to know his subject though, so I'd say he had an agenda, and chances are that it was to surf on the cheap wave of "look how low Jackson has fallen".
The director has replied to complaints that it was not impartial by saying "but I interviewed both sides", with the prosecution appearing maybe 3 times as much as the defense, and relying on "evidence" that proved to be false - like the anatomy drawing that, in reality, did not match, as confirmed by the singer's autopsy, which also confirmed he really did suffer from vitiligo and lupus skin conditions.
Jackson was trialled and died in California and under state law, all legal documents are public, meaning anybody interested enough to look them up online will come to different conclusions than those in that programme.
It was neither impartial nor accurate. I'd say don't bother watch it.
It starts well with a good retrospective on the singer's earlier life and career. Then as we reach the end of the 80s, it claims that was when Jackson started bleaching his skin, and it all goes down from there.
If you're a journalist reporting on trials and accusations and you do your job - i.e. You investigate and go to the source, like legal documents and court transcripts - you cannot come to the conclusions expressed in this programme, it is not possible.
The director either did not do his job or he had an agenda. He clearly appears to know his subject though, so I'd say he had an agenda, and chances are that it was to surf on the cheap wave of "look how low Jackson has fallen".
The director has replied to complaints that it was not impartial by saying "but I interviewed both sides", with the prosecution appearing maybe 3 times as much as the defense, and relying on "evidence" that proved to be false - like the anatomy drawing that, in reality, did not match, as confirmed by the singer's autopsy, which also confirmed he really did suffer from vitiligo and lupus skin conditions.
Jackson was trialled and died in California and under state law, all legal documents are public, meaning anybody interested enough to look them up online will come to different conclusions than those in that programme.
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- £1 (estimated)
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content