Skip to content

SANDY GALLIN and DAVID GEFFEN as Michael Jackson’s management team. Part 2

January 4, 2019

This is the continuation of the post about the so-called partnership between Sandy Gallin, David Geffen and Michael Jackson and the way it came to an end (see the first part here). We pick up from where we left off and where the story got somewhat complicated.

Look at Bernard Weinraub, for example.

Weinraub was the Los Angeles correspondent of the New York Times who set off the public outcry against Michael Jackson’s new HIStory album several days prior to the album release – when everything about it was still a guarded secret.

Weinraub suddenly announced that they had got hold of the album and introduced it to the public as “profane, obscure, angry and filled with rage” and its song They Don’t Care About Us as “pointedly critical of Jews”. This immediately sparked off an outrage though no one had yet seen or heard the album.

The name of Bernard Weinraub doesn’t mean anything to us, but not until we learn that he is married to Amy Pascal, who for many years was President of Sony/Columbia pictures.

Bernard Weinraub and Amy Pascal got married in 1997

Could Amy Pascal tip-off her husband with insider information for a sensational pre-release story?

Hardly so. Even if we disregard Sony’s total unwillingness to ruin their own album, Weinraub and Pascal got married in 1997 and started dating only in 1996.

And in the summer of 1995 when the scandal over the album broke out Amy Pascal was working for another company and didn’t have access to Sony music – she was head of Turner Pictures (1994-1996) and became president of Sony’sColumbia Pictures in December 1996.

Well, the lead to Amy Pascal was promising, but it took us nowhere, so we will have to give it another try starting from Bernard Weinraub again.

BERNARD WEINRAUB

Who is Bernard Weinraub?

The March 2004 issue of the Los Angeles Magazine has a big story about this journalist. Its headline is “‘NEW YORK TIMES’ REPORTER BERNARD WEINRAUB HAS HOLLYWOOD’S EAR. THAT’S THE PROBLEM.”

“Bernard Weinraub has Hollywood’s Ear. That’s The Problem” LA Magazine, March 2004

We learn that this veteran NY Times reporter who had been to Vietnam and used to write about politics began reporting from Los Angeles in 1991 as a NY Times entertainment correspondent and as Weinraub put it, began covering Hollywood “like a foreign country”.

His predecessor realized that he hated the place and told his bosses that “he’d never met a worse bunch of liars that the ones in Hollywood”, and when he left Weinraub seized the opportunity.

“The wealth and trappings of Hollywood are for many reporters hard to resist. And Weinraub got into the pool. He just loved it”, said a NY Times staffer. “He loved walking into restaurants and looking like a player.”

A couple of other passages from the LA Magazine story may bring us closer to the point. The esteem Hollywood felt for Weinraub was unrivalled – everyone there sought his attention and approval. And though many would be willing to talk to him he relied on the information of the chosen few.

Weinraub’s affections have been courted as if here were a studio head, because a Weinraub can have a powerful impact on a career. Having Weinraub quote you [] marks you as a player. Having Weinraub dog you, as he did Michael Ovitz, is the kiss of death. He is read obsessibly, his prose searched for nuances of meaning: Who is talking to him? What is the spin? Everybody reads Bernie.

…In a town full of knife hurlers and carpet bombers, it was muttered – albeit often by those who’d felt the sting of Weinraub’s reporting – that he was relying on a small group of sources. Some said he was way too close to Geffen and to Walt Disney Motion Pictures chairman Joe Roth.

“That’s nonsense,” says Weinraub.

“He was way too close to Geffen” LA Magazine, March 2004

Wow, so the Hollywood crowd muttered that Weinraub was way too close to Geffen?

But if that is the case it was certainly Geffen on whom Weinraub relied as part of his “small group of sources” and Geffen could easily tip-off his friend about the Jackson issue (if he wanted to).

The above piece also tells us that when it came to David Geffen’s foes, like Michael Ovitz for example, Weinraub was relentless. Even outsiders saw that the journalist dogged Ovitz so much that it amounted to “the kiss of death”, considering his power of forming public opinion all over the country.

Michael Ovitz says that it was true:

“The vehicle Geffen has repeatedly used to sabotage his image, Ovitz charges, is The New York Times, especially its Hollywood correspondent, Bernard Weinraub. Ovitz has compiled a list of Weinraub articles about him over the years. Few have much nice to say.”

“If I establish the foundation of the negativity,” Ovitz says, “it all comes down to David Geffen and Bernie Weinraub. Everything comes back to those two. I came up with a name for it: linked spin. Geffen comes up with the spin, and Weinraub parrots it back, quoting the same people over and over.“

So if we are to believe Ovitz, whose disaster Geffen did help to orchestrate, there was (and is) a linked spin between Geffen and Weinraub and “everything comes back to those two.”

But if everything comes back to those two, wherever Weinraub is, Geffen should also be somewhere around there. And since it was Weinraub who got exclusive access to Michael Jackson’s unreleased lyrics and triggered off the scandal, it could easily be Geffen who tipped him off – if he wanted to do Michael damage of course.

To me it sounds like a highly probable scenario, especially if we recall Geffen’s usual modus operandi of never acting openly and always working behind the scene. Remember the picture that characterizes Geffen’s ways according to one of his friends? I mean, this one:

“David sort of sits there in the darkness. Very quiet. You don’t know what he’s doing except controlling and manipulating. Sort of like the original-cast album cover of ‘My Fair Lady.’ That’s David.”

The probability of Geffen being behind that negativity about MJ will grow only stronger if we take into account the strange fact that by 1995 the information about Geffen-Michael Jackson partnership had ceased altogether and had been long gone – which points to all not being well between the two of them by that time.

Geffen’s plans for Michael Jackson were initially heavily publicized and even glorified by the media, and reached their peak when Michael signed a new contract with Sony in 1991, but then the stream of information turned into a scarce trickle and soon subsided, somewhat abruptly too.

In 1993 during the Chandler crisis, for example, Geffen didn’t go on the record to defend Michael Jackson (as far as I remember) and the most that can be regarded as Geffen’s support for him was a quote from an anonymous source which was reported – naturally by Bernard Weinraub – as follows:

“Some of the entertainment world’s most formidable figures who know Mr. Jackson said privately today that the current situation seems nothing less than tragic for the shy, reclusive and childlike entertainer, who has, by all accounts, few close friends. His future seems unpredictable.” 

“The entertainment world’s most formidable figure” does sound like Geffen, but what’s interesting is that now he prefers to stay anonymous. And all this “tragic-shy-reclusive” narrative doesn’t look to me like a support for Jackson at all – on the contrary, the remark that Michael has “few friends” and his future is now “unpredictable” conveys a slightly uneasy message and even looks like a faint threat.

In other words, by the year 1995 when the lyrics scandal broke out and considering his close ties with Weinraub it could be David Geffen who could first encourage Michael with those lyrics, but then arrange their leak to the media to present his former friend in the most unfavorable light. And though this is a supposition only, you will agree that it would be very much Geffen’s style.

DO IT, MICHAEL!

Michael Jackson also said that before the song release all his Jewish friends and partners had heard the lyrics “over and over” and obviously none of them objected to them. Sandy Gallin, Michael’s personal manager and Geffen’s best friend even called them “brilliant”.

Sandy Gallin. New York City 01.09.10 Credit: Joseph Marzullo /Wenn.com

Michael Jackson pleaded with Sandy Gallin to go on TV and explain that he wasn’t an anti-Semite, but his plea was met with a flat refusal. And all those whom Michael expected to come out in his support didn’t respond either.

“Michael Jackson Inc.” by Zack O. Greenburg says about it:

“The New York Times called the lyrics “a burst of anti-Semitism” days before the album was released, and Jackson was slammed by scores of media outlets and organizations including the Anti-Defamation League.

Jackson insisted that he’d been misunderstood, and apologized for any pain he’d caused. []

The damage had been done, though, both externally and internally. Shortly after the Times review was published, Jackson asked Gallin, who is Jewish, to go on television and explain that he wasn’t an anti-Semite. Gallin knew his client didn’t have a bias against Jews, but didn’t think getting on the talk show circuit was a good idea. He figured nobody knew who he was, and that they’d expect Jackson’s manager to stand up for him anyway.

In fact, Jackson thought all his Jewish friends, including David Geffen and Steven Spielberg, would take to the airwaves to defend him. He soon found they shared Gallin’s view. “I don’t think they really thought he was anti-Semitic,” says the manager. “But they weren’t going to go on television. He wrote the lyric and he had to stop and explain it.”

This only made Jackson push Gallin harder, to no avail. “He tried to convince me to do it,” Gallin recalls. “I knew it was the wrong thing to do, I wouldn’t do it. He was very upset about all of this, and he thought that maybe I thought he was anti-Semitic. And he fired me.”

Jackson immediately stopped talking to Gallin, and his relationships with Geffen and Spielberg suffered a similar fate.”

Given that Gallin withdrew at the crucial moment though he hadn’t found fault with those lyrics before, the situation reminds me of another episode in Michael’s cooperation with Gallin that took place in 1991.

When the ‘Black Or White’ video was made for the previous ‘Dangerous’ album, Landis objected to Michael’s crotch grabbing and it was Sandy Gallin who vehemently encouraged Michael to proceed. Steve Knopper says about it in his “MJ: The Genius of Michael Jackson” book:

“Landis struggled on the set to contain MJ’s sexual expression. At one point, as Michael reached into his crotch, Landis yelled, “Cut!” and told Michael to knock it off – this was a family production. [ ] They asked choreographer Vince Paterson for his opinion; he agreed with Landis. But Michael insisted on calling Gallin, his manager. “Sandy was a screaming queen. A very flamboyant homosexual,” Landis said. “Sandy Gallin comes to the set, looks at the playback, and goes, ‘Do it, Michael! Do it! Do it!’”

However I don’t remember Sandy Gallin defending Michael when the video was released and another firestorm ensued. Nor did Gallin say that it was he who encouraged Michael Jackson to “do it”.

It seems that Gallin had a pattern to first support and even induce Michael to take certain actions and then leave him alone to face the music and deal with the consequences single-handedly, didn’t he?

DISCREPANCIES

The official story goes that Michael stopped talking to Gallin “immediately” after the lyrics scandal (in June 1995) and soon thereafter the split with Geffen and Spielberg followed.

However if you recall the date of that long Vanity Fair article this post started with, you will realize that it was written almost a year later, in April 1996, and even at that time Gallin was still claiming that he was Michael’s manager.

And indeed, the official notice of termination of Gallin’s company services arrived only in February 1997.

This huge discrepancy in time shouldn’t surprise anyone as we now know that there can’t be “a worse bunch of liars that the ones in Hollywood”, so in search for the minimal truth we can consider the following options:

  • The falling out with Gallin and his friends indeed took place in mid-1995 and from then on Michael Jackson went without a personal manager
  • Officially Gallin could still be there though there was no communication with MJ, so for the remaining period until February 1997 he did little or nothing for Michael (while Jim Morey stayed and took care of the History tour)
  • Michael was unwilling (or afraid) to confront Gallin and Geffen openly, so he let their cooperation die out in an natural way, and this may explain the long period between the actual split and the formal termination.

The options are many, but what’s absolutely clear is that even in case Sandy Gallin did absolutely nothing for Michael Jackson for a year and a half after that incident, the latter was still paying him the fee of seven figures annually.

SMALL WORLD

World is a small place, and in February 1997 we meet the same media players who were involved in the 1995 lyrics scandal again.

Army Archerd, the Daily Variety columnist who had earlier urged Michael to kill his song, was now the first to report that Gallin Morey Associates would be replaced as Michael Jackson’s managers by Saudi Prince Al Waleed bin Talal and his Kingdom Entertainment company (created with MJ three years earlier, in 1994).

Besides breaking the news Archerd portrayed Michael’s professional life as such a mess that it sent a clear message to the public that Gallin and his associates should be happy to be relieved of their unbearable duties.

SAUDI PRINCE’S CO. TAKES OVER JACKSON BIZ

By ARMY ARCHERD

FEBRUARY 3, 1997

Saudi Arabian Prince al-Waleed bin Talal’s Kingdom Entertainment will replace Sandy Gallin-Jim Morey Associates in all of Michael Jackson’s endeavors.

Jim Morey got word of the decision when he was en route to their BevHills offices from Paris and London, after putting together the second leg of Michael Jackson’s tour. The managers have represented Jackson for the past 6 years, through thick and thin. (In fact, when I had called Gallin awhile back, he was quick to agree that Jackson’s lyrics in “HIStory” were out of line and should be changed — and they were.) Another thorn (in Jackson’s professional life, that is) was the “Jackson Family Honors” concert-TV special in Las Vegas two years ago.

Monday, Gary Smith dropped the fraud case against the family to clear the way of getting verdicts on the other two cases before federal Judge Laughlin Waters. Waters can now decide if Jackson broke his promise to perform and whether the Jackson production company JCI and Michael personally are responsible for $1.5 million in excess costs — a result of Michael not showing up for the original event in Atlantic City in December 1993. Smith-Hemion won its case against JCI for $1.7 million, but the claim has never been able to be collected. Gary Smith also has a case pending before state court Justice Sherman Smith that could force Jackson to pay the money to JCI, which would then be collectible by Smith-Hemion. Still with us?

All that happened while Gallin-Morey managed Michael and were involved with all phases of Jackson’s biz, from concert to pix and legit development. Jackson’s showbiz activities are now in the realm of Kingdom Entertainment.

The Jackson Family Honors is an off-topic of course, but let me still decipher it for you. JCI stands for Jackson Communications, Inc – a company conceived by Jermaine Jackson and the Jackson parents in 1992. The ‘Jackson Family Honors’ was a televised charity event arranged by this company that was to be aired on NBC on December 11, 1993.

As a personal favor to his family Michael Jackson agreed to make his appearance with no obligation to perform, but present the awards only. The show was postponed until February 1994 due to Chandler’s allegations and Michael’s treatment abroad, and when it took place it was essentially a flop. Michael had nothing to do with the organization or finances for the show, but nevertheless became the subject of the usual ridicule.

The above piece is an example of that sarcasm, which in this case is meant to show how big and messy was the burden Gallin and Morey had finally shaken off their shoulders.

Now what did Sandy Gallin do after he was relieved of his unbearable duties?

A NEW PROJECT

A year and a half later, in the summer of 1998 the all-too familiar Bernard Weinraub, the LA correspondent of the NY Times emerged in the Las Vegas Sun with the news that Sandy Gallin was to handle another big project.

The owner of Las Vegas Mirage casino Steve Wynn set up a subsidiary to develop new theaters, arenas and cabarets, and create shows with a view to take them to Broadway, and Barry Diller suggested his friend Sandy Gallin as the head of this new project to which Steve Wynn enthusiastically agreed.

Mirage hires top manager to build new entertainment lineup

Bernard Weinraub

Thursday, June 4, 1998 | 10:41 a.m.

Steve Wynn, 2017

In a move designed to alter the type of entertainment now seen in Las Vegas, Stephen Wynn, chairman of Mirage Resorts Inc., announced the appointment Wednesday of Sandy Gallin, a top talent manager, to join his company and start new theaters, arenas and cabarets.

Wynn, who helped transform modern-day casinos into legitimate businesses with entertainment suitable for families, said he had hired Gallin to create theatrical shows that will eventually end up on Broadway.

“I don’t see anything in New York we can’t do as well or better here in Las Vegas,” said Wynn. “We will have relationships with creative people in New York and London. I foresee a time when a hit musical will open in Las Vegas and have a second venue in New York.”

Gallin, 57, a talent manager for more than 30 years, now oversees the careers of performers such as Neil Diamond, Dolly Parton and Mariah Carey. Over the years he has also handled Michael Jackson, Barbra Streisand, Cher, Whoopi Goldberg and Richard Pryor. Gallin’s company, Gallin-Morey Associates, also produced films like “Father of the Bride” and “Fly Away Home,” as well as the television series “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.”

Gallin said he would spend the bulk of his time in Las Vegas but would still serve in a consulting role with his management company, which will be run by his long-time partner, Jim Morey, who was named chairman. Gallin said he would continue his management relationship with some of his most important clients “as long as they’ll have me.”

But the bulk of Gallin’s time will be spent developing what he termed “new and different entertainment for Las Vegas, attracting people who normally don’t work in Las Vegas.”

“We’re making friends and forming relationships with Broadway people,” Wynn said.

The LA Times reported that Wynn and Gallin were brought together by Barry Diller, whose dedication to his friends Gallin and Geffen was so big that Diller even called it a “cradle to grave” union:

Las Vegas casino mogul Steve Wynn on Wednesday hired longtime Hollywood talent manager and producer Sandy Gallin to head his Mirage Entertainment & Sports Inc.

In an interview, Wynn said Gallin was suggested to him by mogul Barry Diller, a longtime friend of Gallin. Wynn said he envisions developing extensive entertainment such as live theater for Mirage’s Las Vegas properties, possibly even taking shows on the road.

The book by Christina Binkley first published in 2008 under the title “Winner Takes All: How Casino Mogul Steve Wynn Won And Lost The High Stakes Gamble To Own Las Vegas” tells us what came of those plans.

Surprisingly, the chapter about Gallin starts with nothing else but mentioning the so-called Velvet Mafia including Gallin, Diller and Geffen, which Steve Wynn was apparently happy to be involved with.  Wynn said that “they always stick together” and “are wonderful”.

The author says that Steve Wynn met all the members of this business group and liked them very much, so the “Velvet Mafia” expression was used by Wynn in a very friendly and even affectionate way, just as a term to define the closely-knit and powerful group of business people (not necessarily gay) who “hold sway in Hollywood.”

Here is an excerpt from chapter 15 of the book.

Steve Wynn about Sandy Gallin’s gang: “They’re all wonderful.”

“I had a wonderful day yesterday,” Steve Wynn said, sounding pleased and a little giddy – the way he behaves when he’s feeling creatively satisfed. “Elaine and Sandy and Eydie Gorme and I were dancing around.”

“Sandy was Sandy Gallin, a Los Angeles talent manager often mentioned in the press as a member of the so-called Velvet Mafia. This was a group of friends, some gay (but not all), who hold sway in Hollywood. Other supposed members of the Velvet Mafia are David Geffen, the music producer, and Barry Diller, the media mogul.

That whole gang of the gay guys – they always stick together, really, really, really,” Wynn said.And they’re all wonderful.”

Barry Diller, who is married to the designer Diane von Furstenberg, put Wynn together with Gallin after Wynn insisted he wanted to “redefine the entertainment industry” in Las Vegas. 

“There’s nothing they do in New York that we can’t do just as well here, “ Wynn said.

Wynn was aware that he had changed the quality of entertainment in Las Vegas, with Cirque du Soleil.  Wynn was bent on bringing something even newer to the entertainment scene, and of course, he looked to his own interests for inspiration. He wanted to produce live theater. He would create a stable of his own Broadway-style productions for Mirage casinos in Las Vegas, Mississippi, and soon, Atlantic City – maybe even take his shows on the road. He talked about establishing a movie and television company. He formed a new subsidiary, Mirage Entertainment & Sports Inc.

In June he hired Sandy Gallin to run this new subsidiary.

Gallin looks weirdly like Steve Wynn. It’s something about the dyed-black hair, the strange cosmetic tautness, the visible hunger for attention. Wynn was so enthusiastic about Gallin that he agreed to pay his new entertainment guru more than he paid his right-hand, Bobby Baldwin.

Gallin ditched everything he’d built in Hollywood for a seven-year contract at Mirage Resorts worth $2,5 million a year in salary and bonus.

Gallin promised to relocate to Las Vegas from Los Angeles; he turned his embattled talent agency, Gallin-Morey Associates over to his partner Jim Morey; and he folded the production company, Sandollar Productions, that he ran with Dolly Parton.

And the following was a year later:

Gallin did not make himself popular among his new colleagues. He was widely thought to be “an absolute idiot” who said little during key meetings and neglected important details, said Dan Lee, who sat through many of them.

For a part of Belllagio’s opening festivities, at Gallin’s direction, Mirage Resorts hired a philarmonic orchestra and arrayed them behind the fountains to accompany the dancing waters. It turned out that the sound wouldn’t carry over the noise of the splashing. The musicians were told to do the orchestral equivalent of a lip-synch, Lee says.

So perhaps it shouldn’t have been surprising that a year later, Mirage Resorts didn’t have a lot to show for Gallin’s costly presence. He still hadn’t made the move to Las Vegas, and there was no stable of theatrical shows or television and movie deals in the works.

One evening in later September 1999 Gallin joined the Wynns for dinner in Las Vegas. There, Wynn accepted Gallin’s resignation – just three weeks after he had fired Dan Lee.

At first, Gallin and Wynn kept up the pretense that it was a friendly parting from a successful relationship. “It really was a reevaluation of my life,” Gallin said a day later. []

”I lost Sandy Gallin. It’s murder.” Wynn said the day of Gallin’s departure. “Elaine and I are so depressed.”

But Wynn seemed to recover from his depression with alacrity. “I need somebody different than him, actually,” Wynn continued cheerily.“I need a really serious production manager. A schedules guy. A shopping guy. Or a girl, for that matter. I don’t need a deal maker. I’ve met everybody in show business now.”

Well, the above result could be easily expected. At the annual fee of $2,5 million Gallin just introduced Steve Wynn to “everybody in show business” – and apparently, that was it.

Wynn made it very clear that this was not enough and that now he needed a serious production manager, which Gallin absolutely wasn’t. And he wasn’t a “schedules guy” either – but this we already knew from other sources.

It took Michael Jackson 6 years to see that his career was similarly mismanaged or, most probably, he realized it much earlier, but lacked courage to part with Gallin and his team.  Steve Wynn was much quicker and braver as he got Gallin to resign just a year later, even despite his seven-year contract with him.

But judging by all that follow-up pretense of a friendly parting, even for Steve Wynn it wasn’t an easy decision, and it is probably in this context that the word “mafia”, so suddenly introduced by Wynn into the narration, should be understood here too.

PERSONAL INSULT

To round up our discussion of Sandy Gallin and his “gang” working with Michael Jackson during that crucial period there is one more source that has not been covered yet but is probably the most valuable of all. It provides the view of an insider, friendly to Sandy Gallin, who worked at his company for around 10 years and who discloses much more than any of the above sources taken together.

I am talking about Shana Mangatal who worked as a receptionist at Gallin Morey Associates exactly at the time when Gallin was Michael’s manager, and who naturally had a crush on MJ and recently published the book “Michael and Me: The Untold Story of Michael Jackson’s Secret Romance”.

The romance I don’t care about and the book may have the flaws of its own, but Shana’s down-to-earth description of Gallin’s company as well as the entertainment industry, Hollywood and their crazy ways is something really special. This awesome description made my day and will surely make yours.

Surprisingly, Shana also introduces her boss Sandy Gallin and his friends as the Velvet Mafia, so I am beginning to think that by now it is a kind of a set expression, used publicly and in good society, to denote the phenomenon of exceptional power and influence of a very tight group of several power players who  “hold sway” (dominate) in Hollywood now.

Here are some excerpts from the book – consider them a New Year gift to all those present here. One of these excerpts will tell you the real reason why Geffen ceased to be Michael’s close friend.

Shana Mangatal:

Gallin Morey Associates was one of the hottest music and talent management companies of the ‘90s. … for seven years, I was front and center in this exclusive enclave of dream makers.

Sandy Gallin was a flamboyant and charming Hollywood power player. His best friend was billionaire David Geffen. Together they knew everybody. They were a part of the so-called Velvet Mafia, which consisted of some of the most powerful gay executives in town.

Another of Sandy’s best friends was screen legend Elizabeth Taylor. Several times a day, Elizabeth called Sandy to discuss the latest Hollywood gossip. Her favorite topic of conversation – Michael Jackson. Sometimes she called so often that Sandy had to dodge her calls by asking me to tell her he wasn’t there. The funny thing is that she always knew when I was lying.

…Sandy Gallin was one of those bosses you could only find in Hollywood. He meditated daily with a turbaned guru named Gurmukh and fired his assistants on an almost weekly basis. I often heard him screaming at them for making the smallest mistake. I watched as they ran out of the office crying, never to return.

…Sometimes he would even throw things at them. The more they showed fear, the more he would attack. Most didn’t last long. But Sandy had a charm about him that made him difficult to dislike. He was funny, with an edgy wit, and was always nice to me. I grew to love him and, thankfully, I was never subjected to any of his tirades.

Jim Morey was the opposite of Sandy: loved by all. He was friendly and a genuinely nice guy, a family man, married with kids, and a dream boss. He was the more conservative one, wearing designer suits, smelling of rich cologne and always carrying a briefcase. He and Sandy evened each other out – yin and yang – the perfect partnership. He gave me advice and helped me navigate the crazy world I was now a part of.

My desk was the calm in the middle of the storm and often I acted as a therapist, encouraging the assistants to hang in there…

Some of those assistants were the young, gay, handsome boys Sandy met at his famous weekly pool parties, which were held at his sprawling mansion in Beverly Hills or his beach home in Malibu. Most of these boys were fresh off the bus from small towns across the country. They harbored dreams of becoming rich or famous – or both. I chuckled every time a new one stepped off the elevator for his first day on the job. They were so fresh-faced and eager. That excitement never lasted long.

I somehow managed to stay at the company for nearly a decade – a record, I’m sure. Over those years, I witnessed the birth of many legends and had a front-row seat to the wild and wacky music industry, which was thriving in those heady days of the ‘90s.

My first month on the job, I was invited to one of Sandy’s famous parties. They were a thing of legend something you only read about in magazines. Think The Great Gatsby. This would be my first real Hollywood party. I hadn’t even turned twenty-one yet, so to say I was naïve and unsophisticated would be an understatement.

…Something told me this was not going to be an ordinary party. The bash was being thrown in honor of Sandy’s boyfriend, Tom. It was his birthday. Tom was drop-dead gorgeous, with impossibly deep dimples and a sweet midwestern personality. He worked at Gallin Morey as a junior music manager. I had no idea he was gay or Sandy’s boyfriend until this night.  He was so cute I’d actually developed a crush on him during my short time at the company. Sandy was obviously besotted as well, because the party was extravagant.

…While I stood in awe, not knowing which way to turn first, I spotted Madonna. Yes, that Madonna. I had gone through my Madonna phase as a teenager, emulating her unique style of dress and watching her videos nonstop, so this was exciting, As I walked closer, I became disappointed. She didn’t look anything like she did in her music videos. She barely had on any makeup. Her hair was jet black and looked like it could use a wash – it was pulled back off her face. She wore a baggy T-shirt and shorts that were too big for her, with flat shoes and knee-high socks. She was also short, which I didn’t expect.

…She was thirty-two years old at this time but looked like a schoolgirl gone bad. Her demeanor was that of someone who was under the influence of something. I’m not sure if she actually was, but she was acting spacey. I overheard her saying, “I don’t do the blue ones,” I imagined she was discussing pills, as most of Hollywood seemed to be on them and other drugs.

Madonna had met Michael for the first time a few months earlier, at Sandy’s previous party. They had spent the entire night sitting on the steps in Sandy’s foyer talking.

…Michael loved to tell the story of his first date with Madonna. According to him, she came to his condo in nothing but a robe and tried to seduce him. But Madonna’s plan didn’t work. Her aggression turned him off.

Although he rebuffed her advances that night, he seriously reconsidered his decision, wondering if perhaps he should’ve tried it out. He asked a few of his male friends, including music producer Teddy Riley, for advice. “Should I do her?” he asked. His friends all told him to go for it. Most guys weren’t turning down Madonna at that time. She was just as famous as Michael and considered a sex symbol, having just released her controversial book, Sex. But he decided against it and the great hookup of Michael and Madonna never happened.

The drinks were free and endless at this Sandy Gallin party and everybody was indulging except me. I kept the same glass of champagne in my hand the entire night. I knew that I wouldn’t be able to drive home if I drank more than that. Terence Trent D’Arby, whose hit song “Sign Your Name’ had recently made him a star, was also there and appeared to have had one too many. I stood behind him in line for the bathroom. He became impatient because whoever was in the bathroom was taking a long time. After about ten minutes of waiting, he banged on the door shouting, “You’re taking too long!”

…To our surprise, when the door opened all three members of the Pointer Sisters came stumbling out, looking embarrassed. Terence hurried in without speaking another word and was out quickly. I went in after him and could smell the distinct smell of marijuana. That night I learned why people in Hollywood always went to the bathroom together and took forever to finish.

And here is a little touch to David Geffen’s portrait which explains how and under what circumstances his partnership with Michael Jackson frayed and why they eventually parted ways.

Sandy’s best friend, David Geffen, was also there. At that moment, he was the richest, most powerful man in town. He sported a perpetual tan and a certain je ne sais quoi that made him irresistible. David and Sandy were both in their late forties but in incredible shape, able to attract any young, hot guy they desired. Everyone wanted to know David, and, at this time, Michael Jackson was no different.

David and Michael had become fast friends, and David introduced Michael to Sandy. That’s how Michael became Sandy’s client. There were even rumors that David and Michael were secretly dating. I wondered if this was true. No one really knew what Michael’s sexual orientation was at this time  but everyone speculated about it. He had managed to keep that side of himself ambiguous even to those who knew him well.

Years later, I asked Michael about David and why they were no longer close friends (Michael managed to fall out with most of his friends every few years). I don’t know how true it is, because Michael was known to exaggerate on occasion, but he said that David had tried to seduce him, attempting to kiss him, and, according to Michael, he refused. Their friendship was strained after that. This story sounded surprisingly similar to the one about Madonna.

One thing was for sure: men and women were both intrigued by Michael’s natural charm. To know him was to be in love with him. Many had tried and failed to seduce him.”

Shana Mangatal about Michael Jackson and David Geffen

Oh my God, Geffen attempted to kiss Michael and seduce him in the same way Madonna tried it, but Michael rejected him…. And their relations were “strained” after that….  And this is the main reason Michael gave as to why they were no longer close friends….

Let me say it again for those who still didn’t get it.

MICHAEL REJECTED GEFFEN.

He rejected him, though it could be the big idea of Geffen’s relationship with Michael from the very start of it. And surely if Michael had agreed his future would have been totally different.

Geffen befriended Jackson in 1982 and officially parted ways with him sometime in 1995. And now we learn that at some point in between those dates Geffen tried to seduce Michael, and Michael refused him.

The crucial importance of what you’ve just learned shouldn’t be underestimated.

Other famous people were ruined by Geffen for much lighter offenses, and were never or little heard of since then even despite their sparkling talent (like Donna Summer, for example).

And Michael’s refusal was a personal insult to Geffen, and knowing the latter’s vindictiveness beginning with that moment Michael could say good-bye to his career.

People who know David Geffen personally say that if he is your friend, he will do anything for you, but if he turns into your enemy “you might as well kill yourself.”

Michael Jackson didn’t know it, but from that moment on the ruining of his career was just a matter of time.

21 Comments leave one →
  1. January 14, 2019 9:09 pm

    Meanwhile Hannah Kozak has written a very good text, a kind of a manifesto addressed to Sundance which I would gladly sign if it were on some online platform. Here it is:

    No More Nails in Michael Jackson’s coffin – He’s Already Dead.
    By hannahkozak

    When I think of Sundance, the first word that comes to mind is quality. After that, I think of Robert Redford, integrity, and honor. Integrity for his vision in creating the Sundance Institute to bring movies made with class and vision and honor for sticking with that vision. To hear that Sundance would be screening the “Leaving Neverland” documentary hit me like a punch in the stomach.

    Did Sundance take any steps whatsoever to investigate the real criminals in the multiple Michael Jackson extortion attempts? In 1993 Evan Chandler, a dentist who wanted to be a full time screenwriter made an attempt to blackmail twenty million dollars from Michael. When his demands were not met, he was recorded saying, “Everything’s going according to a certain plan that isn’t just mine … and if I go through with this, I win big time. There’s no way I lose. I’ve checked this inside and out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose custody of Jordy and Michael’s career will be over.” He did not go to social services, which is where one would go if there was any thought of child molestation. No, Evan Chandler went to the “meanest son of a bitch” (his words) attorney he could find.

    Is Sundance aware that Thomas Sneddon, District Attorney of Santa Barbara County, in California, falsified evidence in a court of law in his vendetta against Michael Jackson? Why Sneddon wasn’t imprisoned is the bigger question. Sneddon is best known for his hunt against Michael Jackson even though Jackson was acquitted of all charges because simply, there was no evidence, only lies.

    I am a award-winning documentary photographer who has spent nine years on various photo essays covering topics such as my father’s survival in eight concentration camps during the holocaust and my mother’s life in an aging facility after her second husband’s abuse left her with brain damage.

    Another project I have been working on is “Searching for Michael Jackson,” a project for which I spent eight years researching who Michael Jackson really was, apart from the image the media fed us. During my research, I found that Michael Jackson had lawsuits brought against him almost weekly for financial gain. After reading the court transcripts it became clear that the Arvizo Family was trying to get their slice of pie from Jackson’s hard work by making up lies that were so preposterous that laughs could be heard in the courtroom in 2005.

    Now, with the anniversary of Michael’s death around the corner, the media has begun bashing the man who was a proven victim of blackmail and extortion. First there was greedy Evan Chandler, who committed suicide four months after Michael died. Next the “Me Too” ( I want Michael’s money) Arvizos, proven extortionists and the biggest player of all, the media who loved to smear his name from Diane Diamond to Martin Bashirs.

    When will the travesties against this man end? The media doesn’t reflect the facts and Sundance should. When it comes to Michael Jackson, it is about lies and profit and always has been. The Michael Jackson estate has issued a statement saying this film was “another rehash of dated and discredited allegations” and a “pathetic attempt to exploit and cash in on” the singer.

    Wade Robson applied for a job choreographing a Michael Jackson tribute show for Michael’s estate. And when he was not chosen, Robson filed fifty lawsuits, seeking money for abuse, even though he testified under oath, vehemently denying any abuse in a court of law in 2005 even going as far as saying it was silly to even suggest he was improperly touched by Michael. Wade’s actions since he accused Michael are simply not consistent with someone who was traumatized by him. There are videos where he was praising Michael. Wade Robson is bankrupt because his lawsuit was dropped due to a lack of evidence and he is seeking to get money because after all, why work if you can just sue the Michael Jackson estate? What is Robson’s motivation? In the immortal words of Michael Jackson, after the first allegations: “If you show me the cash then I will take it. If you tell me to cry then I will fake it. You do anything for money.”

    I would look forward to and welcome Sundance to screen a legitimate documentary made about the lies by Evan Chandler, Thomas Sneddon planting fingerprints and falsifying evidence in a court of law, Harvey Weinstein peddling fake Michael Jackson stories to take the heat off his real sex abuse, the “Me Too” Arvizos and their false claims against JC Penney and all the other weekly, monthly, and yearly blackmails made against Michael Jackson, a victim of extortion attempts, who was humiliated over and over while the media crucified him. When are we going to see that documentary?

    Bad move, Sundance film festival.
    https://hannahkozak.wordpress.com/2019/01/14/no-more-nails-in-michael-jacksons-coffin-hes-already-dead/

    Here is some contact information regarding Sundance:
    https://www.facebook.com/sundance
    email addresses: programming@sundance.org and Institute@sundance.org

    Though the best way would be writing on an open platform for everyone to see texts like the above. Are there any?

    Like

  2. January 14, 2019 9:01 pm

    “If we should have THE documentary, it should maybe be two different ones. One defending Michael, of course. And one exposing Geffen.” – luv4hutch

    And there will be both. It is just a matter of time.

    Like

  3. January 14, 2019 8:51 pm

    “It is obvious in MJ’s case that somebody always tries to keep the lies alive to destroy his name for the future, and also now in the year of the 10th death anniversary.” – Susannerb

    Absolutely. And the more these people try to destroy Michael Jackson, the more obvious it becomes that it is a well-thought out plot by someone who is extremely dedicated to doing away with Michael even 10 years after his death.

    “What we need is a documentary by an independent producer.”

    Right! And the one with a good record at that.

    “The makers of this “documentary” knew exactly why they chose the Sundance Festival for its promotion.”

    Oh, they knew what they were doing all right! Moreover, those who envisaged this project chose not just a chance film maker, but the one with an image of a truthseeker and a critical mind. Dan Reed recently made a documentary “From Russia with Cash” about the interaction between Russian corrupt government officials and British real estate brokers who continue with the deals even though they know that their clients are crooks. The press called the movie “powerful” and said that “it created a splash in the UK”. See this article: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/from-russia-with-cash-dirty-money-unchecked-in-london

    The black humor of employing a film director of that kind who even speaks Russian is not lost on me, as you can imagine.

    “It probably wouldn’t be very expensive to make a 4-hour interview with two guys (who are not even very famous) telling just a story”

    I suppose that this movie is going to be expensive. Take into account that in order to make a 4 hours long film they had to have many hours of footage and the project naturally involved travelling and staying at hotels in the US of the whole crew, scheduling meetings with various people, selecting some archived materials and reenacting some scenes by actors specially employed for the job (“From Russia with Cash” has a similar structure though that movie was obviously much cheaper), not to mention all the expenses on post-production and marketing.

    Dan Reed’s project in India cost $400,000 for a 1-hour film, and that was 10 years ago and the expenses in India are probably not as high as in the US, so the budget of over $1,000,000 would be the most conservative figure here. And since Channel 4 commissioned it, the cash-flow was guaranteed.

    As to rewarding the lies for this movie and in general for six long years … I cannot even imagine how big a sum it could amount to. In this case money does not only talk, but it screams.

    Like

  4. January 14, 2019 9:51 am

    If we should have THE documentary, it should maybe be two different ones. One defending Michael, of course. And one exposing Geffen. And for the latter, Spielberg must be included, as he must be informed about the “Project M” sham. He’d be the key to bringing Geffen down.

    As for making the documentaries and giving them the cachet and credibility needed, a few directors come to mind: the first is Alex Gibney, known for films like Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, Taxi to the Dark Side, Client 9, Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God, The Armstrong Lie, and Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine.

    The next is Errol Morris, best known for The Thin Blue Line, as well as his one-on-one confrontation interview films The Fog of War and The Unknown Known. He also wrote a book entitled A Wilderness of Error: The Trials of Jeffrey McDonald, affirming that the former Green Beret convicted of killing his family is indeed innocent.

    The last is Joe Berlinger. He is best known for his work with his late partner Bruce Sinofsky with the film Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills, which brought the case of the West Memphis Three to light, along with its two sequels. They also did the Metallica documentary Some Kind of Monster, which was renowned for its revealing look at a band on the edge of collapse. On his own, Berlinger, has done documentaries about crude oil and its effect on society and Whitey Bulger.

    Like

  5. susannerb permalink*
    January 14, 2019 9:18 am

    Helena, you already did some fact-finding in the Sundance issue, thank you.
    I feel a bit like Sanemjfan, having to debunk these stories for 10 years now is really tiring, and I don’t know of another person who is pursued for decades with accusations and false stories, without any evidence, even long after his death. Even real, convicted criminals are not vilified like this and people normally stop talking when the person is gone and forget about it. It is obvious in MJ’s case that somebody always tries to keep the lies alive to destroy his name for the future, and also now in the year of the 10th death anniversary.

    In my opinion the problem with a documentary made by a member of the Jackson family is that it won’t be regarded credible enough by a lot of people (because it’s family and their own reputation). What we need is a documentary by an independent producer.
    The makers of this “documentary” knew exactly why they chose the Sundance Festival for its promotion. They want to give to it the touch of seriousness and credibility by smuggling it into this highly recognized independent film festival founded by one of the best and most committed US actors, who even feels not very close to Hollywood. This is a well-considered action with a plan to be one step ahead before an independent truthful documentary unmasking the accusers emerges. And Helena is absolutely right: The financial sources and channels of this film, which perhaps only shows the two accusers telling their invented stories in an interview, are the key factors in this matter. The Sundance Festival usually promotes low-budget films, but what about the costs for this film? It probably wouldn’t be very expensive to make a 4-hour interview with two guys (who are not even very famous) telling just a story, But it could be very expensive to pay for lies and people and rewards and silencing.

    I already wrote my comment on the Sundance Festival FP page and asked the responsible persons to follow the money. As tiring as it is, we have to pursue this issue and uncover what becomes obvious.

    Like

  6. January 14, 2019 7:12 am

    “As you can imagine, I am just depressed, dejected, and demoralized right now, but I’m going to stay strong for MJ and the fan community”- sanemjfan

    Good. But this is no time to be depressed and demoralized – it is the time to finally get to the truth of the matter and stop being blind to what is staring us in the face – to those who are working behind the scenes and make it all happen.
    To do this just ask the right questions.
    And demand answers to them.

    Like

  7. January 14, 2019 6:51 am

    Previously I thought that Robson/Safechuck’s lawyers dropped the idea of an appeal as appeals are handled by special appelate lawyers and are very costly business. But I was wrong – in their latest statement Finaldi said that the suits “are now under appeal”.

    “Vince Finaldi, who represents Wade Robson and James Safechuck in lawsuits alleging Jackson molested them, said the suits were dismissed on technical grounds, not the credibility of the men’s claims, and they are now under appeal.” https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/8493097/michael-jackson-accusers-deserve-to-be-heard-leaving-neverland-documentary

    This new detail about the appeal now underway proves once again that MONEY (REALLY BIG MONEY) AND HUGE MEDIA CONNECTIONS ARE STANDING BEHIND THIS SIX YEAR LONG SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST JACKSON.

    Anyone who still had doubts about it will now see that without so big a financing and media support these two so-called “victims” couldn’t have carried out even a fraction of all these activities – the lawsuits, two consecutive teams of lawyers working tirelessly for them for more than six years, the appeal, the immediate media coverage of their lies, TV interviews and whatnot, and now a film made specially for the two of them, to be presented at a film festival at that.

    Just compare it with the enormous personal effort by Corey Feldman and many other genuine victims of abuse who time and again dare raise their voices and get little, if any, support from the press – and you will see the difference. And the scam whose sole target is Michael Jackson.

    A great deal of real cases of abuse are silenced while two fictional “victims” are given all the attention of which others are deprived. Why? This is the question that should be asked by everyone who stands up for the truth and wants the world to be free from fake news, prejudice and manipulation. And the time to ask this question is NOW.

    CHARLES THOMSON ABOUT IT:

    Charles Thomson@CEThomson
    The reason I find HBO, Channel 4 and Sundance’s decision to promote and legitimise this latest Michael Jackson documentary so utterly sickening is that this sort of attention-seeking, easily debunked rubbish sabotages credible allegations by credible victims. [THREAD https://twitter.com/CEThomson/status/1083520390528413701%5D

    It’s an insult to victims, an affront to justice & an insult to proper journalists who work for years to stand up genuine abuse, rather than lazily justifying the rehashing of already-debunked allegations by going, ‘Well, he’s dead, so who cares? We can say whatever we want.’

    Shame on HBO. Shame on Channel 4. Shame on Sundance. Absolute disgrace.
    Jan 11, 2019

    This TV show is not about giving voice to victims. There are thousands of victims who deserve airtime & don’t have the credibility issues these accusers do. C4 is feigning morality whilst broadcasting unethical, sensationalist shit that wouldn’t be allowed on air if MJ was alive.
    Jan 12, 2019

    Like

  8. January 14, 2019 6:14 am

    “Taj from 3T said that he trying to fund a documentary – no actually THE documentary – to end the crap once and for all, and Brett Barnes has publicly offered to participate.”- sanemjfan

    THE documentary should be made by all means, but this may not be the right time for it. It is a serious project which should be handled properly and not in haste. If he manages to do it by the 10th anniversary of Michael’s acquittal in court it will be perfect, but the time left until then makes it unrealistic. So it is more like a long-term project.

    The immediate thing to do for all Michael’s supporters is to approach the Sundance festival organizers with information that though they present themselves as a forum for independent films, this time they are making a huge mistake. This film is neither independent, nor is it a documentary by a struggling truth-seeker – it is a well-financed project commissioned, as far as I know, by Channel 4 Television Corporation, and though the film is made by an award-winning filmmaker, in its essence it is a pure slander job based on totally ungrounded allegations.

    Robson/Safechuck’s lawyers say that they should have a chance to speak out, but no credible film festival should give a chance to some con-artists to present their lies as fact.

    The film will be still shown on Channel 4 and HBO and nothing can be done about it (any petitions will only give more publicity to their project), but the festival should take this film off their program. It was added at the last minute, so they did have doubts about it, and now it is time for the MJ community to show that this festival is no place for outright lies presented as some “independent opinion”.

    Some information about Sundance festival:

    Sundance Institute
    Founded in 1981 by Robert Redford, Sundance Institute is a nonprofit organization that provides and preserves the space for artists in film, theatre, and media to create and thrive. The Institute’s signature Labs, granting, and mentorship programs, dedicated to developing new work, take place throughout the year in the U.S. and internationally. The Sundance Film Festival and other public programs connect audiences to artists in igniting new ideas, discovering original voices, and building a community dedicated to independent storytelling.

    The Sundance Film Festival®
    The Sundance Film Festival has introduced global audiences to some of the most groundbreaking films of the past three decades, including Sorry to Bother You, Won’t You Be My Neighbor?, Eighth Grade, Get Out, The Big Sick, Mudbound, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Fruitvale Station, Whiplash, Brooklyn, Precious, The Cove, Little Miss Sunshine, An Inconvenient Truth, Napoleon Dynamite, Hedwig and the Angry Inch, Reservoir Dogs and sex, lies, and videotape. The Festival is a program of the non-profit Sundance Institute®. The Festival is a program of the non-profit Sundance Institute®. 2019 Festival sponsors include: Presenting Sponsors – Acura, SundanceTV, Chase Sapphire, YouTube; Leadership Sponsors – Adobe, Amazon Studios, AT&T, DIRECTV, Dropbox, Netflix, Omnicom, Stella Artois; Sustaining Sponsors – Ancestry, Canada Goose, Canon, Dell, Francis Ford Coppola Winery, GEICO, High West Distillery, IMDbPro, Lyft, RIMOWA, Unity Technologies, University of Utah Health; Media Sponsors – The Atlantic, IndieWire, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, VARIETY, The Wall Street Journal. Sundance Institute recognizes critical support from the Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Development, and the State of Utah as Festival Host State. The support of these organizations helps offset the Festival’s costs and sustain the Institute’s year-round programs for independent artists. Look for the Official Partner seal at their venues at the Festival. sundance.org/festival
    https://www.sundance.org/blogs/news/2019-festival-adds-late-additions

    This film is in direct contradiction to the principles the festival follows. It is far from any ‘independent storytelling’ and is a sample of the usual tabloid hit and run approach.

    Like

  9. sanemjfan permalink
    January 13, 2019 11:19 pm

    Hey Helena, long time no talk! As you can imagine, I am just depressed, dejected, and demoralized right now, but I’m going to stay strong for MJ and the fan community, and do my best to combat these lies on Twitter. Unfortunately, Lynette has left the fan community, and I don’t blame her. It’s just tiring having to deal with this 10 year long game of whack-a-mole, constantly debunking one lie after another to a gullible general public who are just too lazy to do any substantive research.

    Taj from 3T said that he trying to fund a documentary – no actually THE documentary – to end the crap once and for all, and Brett Barnes has publicly offered to participate. That’s a huge morale booster for the fanbase, and I’m keeping my fingers crossed for Janet to speak out! (Although I’m not optimistic that she will.)

    Like

  10. January 13, 2019 8:44 pm

    In an 2011 interview Dan Reed and his colleague documentary filmmaker Sarah McCarthy spoke about the difficulties of finding financing for their projects and getting them off the ground. Here are some excerpts from that interview:https://www.directors.uk.com/news/career-advice-dan-reed-and-sarah-mccarthy

    Sara McCarthy: Once you’ve made your first film, you think you’ve made it, but that simply isn’t true – it’s still really difficult to get projects off the ground. … The film was selected for Toronto Film Festival, and was eventually acquired by HBO. Again, after this success, I presumed pitching for my next project would be far easier, so went to HotDocs feeling confident. But although certain buyers expressed an interest, there was no follow-up. It seems getting money for docs is a long-term problem

    Dan Reed: …working for an institution such as the BBC means there isn’t the need to go out looking for financial backing. Clearly my career path is quite different to Sarah’s, and I think that between us we illustrate the two major options open to directors; either work your way up within the BBC, where creativity is limited, or go it alone, maintaining your “vision” but struggling for cash.

    “What advice would you give to someone trying to become a fully-fledged director?”
    Dan Reed: If you are able to secure a job in production, try to make sure it’s the sort of production you would like to direct. Directors in the film and television industries can find themselves quickly pigeonholed..
    Sara McCarthy: Ensure your projects ideas are as developed and realised as possible before taking them to producers. Film ideas need to be saleable and appeal to one or several demographics.

    “What can directors do to ensure work comes their way?”
    Dan Reed: Form bonds with people, so that they trust you to tell you their life stories. Or give you cash!
    Sara McCarthy: Be prepared to work with tiny budgets, as money is not always easy to come by in film and television.

    So money is not easy to come by in film and television. And lack of cash is always a problem. Though of course not when it comes to lies about Jackson.

    It’s time to demand answers to some questions:
    Why are sponsors so willing to finance lies about Jackson and why is it so difficult to finance the truth about the molestation of Corey Feldman and real victims of child abuse? Why are their true stories hushed up though they could produce a no less powerful impression on the public? And would give the channels similar ratings?

    Like

  11. January 13, 2019 7:49 pm

    Dan Reed’s film “Terror In Mumbai” about a terrorist attack in India was made in 2009 and runs for an hour. Dan Reed is credited as producer and director of this film (same as of the new “documentary” about Robson&Safechuck).

    In an interview about the film “Terror in Mumbai” Reed says that he didn’t have to put his money into the project. It was financed by Channel 4 and HBO, and the budget for the 1-hour long film was approximately 400,000 dollars. He speaks about the sum at point 41:45 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jig-EFBX0r4

    So four hours of the new film should cost no less than $1,6 million, but that was in 2009 and given the inflation the sum should be higher by now.
    This is just for your information – to have the idea of the money that was invested in this project.

    Like

  12. January 13, 2019 5:35 pm

    “I don’t know what to say what to do.” – Des

    This development could be easily expected. When those behind Robson & Safechuck realized they couldn’t win the case in the court of law, their lawyers’ first reaction was to make an appeal (which is a very costly business and would have surely revealed that Robson &Safechuck have sponsors to campaign against Jackson).
    And now they have found an even more effective method to smear Michael’s name – anything visual always has a huge impact on the audience.

    BUT THE MONEY ISSUE STILL REMAINS. AND THE METHOD THEY CHOSE POINTS TO AN INLIMITED BUDGET BEHIND Robson&Safechuck.

    FOLLOW THE MONEY LEAD AND YOU WILL FIND THE ONE WHO IS (and was) SO INTENT ON RUINING MICHAEL’S LEGACY AND NAME.

    Remember how difficult it is for Corey Feldman to find a sponsor for filming his absolutely true story of molestation.
    And look how easy it is for these two liars to find money for their never-ending smear campaign against MJ. First for the two teams of lawyers and many years of litigation, and now for a 4-hour film by an award-winning film director.

    All of it must take Michael’s fans on the right path after all. If all of you look in the right direction you will find the answer.
    YOU WILL KNOW WHO IS DOING IT TO MICHAEL.

    Like

  13. January 13, 2019 5:23 pm

    join the petition: https://www.change.org/p/robert-redford-end-the-defamation-of-michael-jackson- louissy

    Dear friends, I’ve learned about it only today and here is my take on it:
    We can of course join the petition, but in my opinion it is extremely important to focus on another issue – on the finances for this project and those who engineered it.

    It is a four-hour “documentary” made by a really renowned film director who has lots of documentaries to his credit (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0715371/) and who was even nominated for “Primetime Emmy Outstanding Directing for Nonfiction Programming”.
    And this means that the budget for this “documentary” should be in millions and the fee paid to the film director must be adequate to his status and reputation.

    Robson and Safechuck do not have this kind of money. So the obvious conclusion is that THEY HAVE A VERY RICH SPONSOR.
    WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS DRIVING AT ALL ALONG.

    The questions of WHO is standing behind this new anti-Michael campaign should be the crucial one in this situation and the main question to ask is WHO IS PAYING FOR IT?

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Des permalink
    January 13, 2019 7:04 am

    Dear Helena I am numb these days after finding out about that documentary,I don’t know what to say what to do. I know this will pass too but why this is happening again,how can these people get away with it.My heart is breaking for his family and his fans all over the world,their have been fighting so hard including you all these years to spread the truth about Michael and its like never ends.For how long people will use his name for money,dint he had enough when he was alive.I don’t know what to say am just sitting every day and reading all the comments and tweets from his fans,it’s disgusting what’s happening again.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. louissy permalink
    January 9, 2019 8:17 pm

    join the petition:

    https://www.change.org/p/robert-redford-end-the-defamation-of-michael-jackson

    Michael Jackson needs us!!!

    Like

  16. January 9, 2019 4:44 pm

    Looks like a renowned documentary filmmaker is now being suckered into the latest hit piece on Michael…premiering at Sundance, no less, and taking full advantage of the attention the Lifetime R. Kelly series is getting: https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-news/michael-jackson-sexual-abuse-documentary-sundance-776934/

    (I’m sure that if Michael had known about Kelly’s proclivities, he never would have worked with him)

    Like

  17. January 7, 2019 2:52 pm

    “So you still have not a direct and true testimony from Michael – only a rumor which Shana put in Michaels mouth”- all4michael

    First of all, when I said that I have Michael’s direct words about his career being ruined by Geffen I didn’t mean Shana’s book. That information comes from a totally different source, and an official one at that.

    Secondly, even in the unlikely case she only repeated someone’s gossip about Michael saying it to someone else, does it change anything? Think for yourself – someone said it to her and she only repeated it, but does it change the story itself?

    And thirdly, no matter what you or anyone think about Shana, and even irrespective of what she really is, no one, I repeat, no one plays jokes with Geffen’s name. If it was only a way to show that she was close to Michael and they talked privately, she could have easily selected someone else – but surely not Geffen.

    “she implies that she and Michael really talked about such things. But I guarantee you they didn’t!”

    You guarantee it? Really?

    Like

  18. January 6, 2019 7:20 am

    Quote Vindicatemj (Helena):
    “The thing is that if Shana invented or exaggerated it, it wouldn’t benefit her in any way. On the contrary sharing information like that can do harm and demanded of her a good deal of courage. I am sure that before writing it she had to think it over and over again. 
    Many people are afraid to even mention the name of Geffen – as if he were “the one whose name cannot be called”, and say anything critical of him. And she certainly did realize that by sharing this insider’s information she was taking a risk and was leaving herself open to some unwelcome consequences. So this isn’t just some irresponsible gossip on her part.
    Moreover I have direct proof that it was Geffen who ruined Michael’s career. These were Michael’s own words, only it was not easy to find them.“
    ———————-

    While I understand your point, I still think you don’t know the way Shana “works”. In her book and her story it’s all about getting people to believe, she had a close relationship to MJ. Something she never had. So this quote you used from her book:

    “Years later, I asked Michael about David and why they were no longer close friends (Michael managed to fall out with most of his friends every few years). I don’t know how true it is, because Michael was known to exaggerate on occasion, but he said that David had tried to seduce him, attempting to kiss him, and, according to Michael, he refused. Their friendship was strained after that. This story sounded surprisingly similar to the one about Madonna.”

    …is just an example of her modus operandi. By writing “I asked Michael about David”…. “…but HE SAID that David had tried to seduce him…” she implies that she and Michael really talked about such things. But I guarantee you they didn’t! That’s a fact – their relationship never was something like this. So if you quote her book and this story and information, which Shana writes as if she got it DIRECTLY from Michael, it’s not a reliable source. If anything she heard that story as a rumor. But she’s a master in deceiving. That’s what she always does. So you still have not a direct and true testimony from Michael – only a rumor which Shana put in Michaels mouth. Thats the thing here, and that’s a big difference! And that’s also the reason why she didn’t even think about “taking a risk” giving this information about Geffen. She stays on the safe side because she put’s those words into Michael’s mouth – while she stays “innocent”. So sadly all we have about this story is still a rumor….
    So thats why I will never believe something as a fact what comes out of the mouth (or book) of Shana.

    Like

  19. January 5, 2019 5:37 pm

    “I really do not know if I can believe something like this coming from her” – all4michael

    The thing is that if Shana invented or exaggerated it, it wouldn’t benefit her in any way. On the contrary sharing information like that can do harm and demanded of her a good deal of courage. I am sure that before writing it she had to think it over and over again.

    Many people are afraid to even mention the name of Geffen – as if he were “the one whose name cannot be called”, and say anything critical of him. And she certainly did realize that by sharing this insider’s information she was taking a risk and was leaving herself open to some unwelcome consequences. So this isn’t just some irresponsible gossip on her part.

    Moreover I have direct proof that it was Geffen who ruined Michael’s career. These were Michael’s own words, only it was not easy to find them.

    Like

  20. January 5, 2019 12:52 pm

    😦 You should take everything what Shana Mangatal writes in her fiction.-book with a big grain of salt. She’s a woman who stalked Michael for years and there’s lot’s of negativity towards Michael between the lines of her book. I really do not know if I can believe something like this coming from her:
    “Years later, I asked Michael about David and why they were no longer close friends (Michael managed to fall out with most of his friends every few years). I don’t know how true it is, because Michael was known to exaggerate on occasion, but he said that David had tried to seduce him, attempting to kiss him, and, according to Michael, he refused. Their friendship was strained after that. This story sounded surprisingly similar to the one about Madonna.”

    THere’s also a lot of “second hand news” in her book. Things she heard from other people or read in the press… The relationship to Michael she describes in that book is exaggerated by far. I know you might not care about the romance in that book (you’re right with this – because thee wasn’t too much romance going on) but I’m not sure if that book can be considered as a reliable source for anything at all.

    Like

  21. January 4, 2019 1:32 pm

    Recently I received a message from Jen who said:

    I need some information on this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j8_lNSxhX0E

    Let me share my opinion here:

    Jen,
    It seems to me that in such a roundabout way Michael was talking about one Jew who really did it on purpose. This person indeed did everything in his power to ruin Michael.
    Actually it doesn’t matter whether this person is Jew or non-Jew – he just happens to be one, though he could be of any other origin.

    In my opinion by saying all that Michael was sort of sending a signal to this person: “I know it’s you who is behind all of it.”

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: