Skip to content

The Debate With a Hollywood Producer: MICHAEL JACKSON, PROJECT M and STEVEN SPIELBERG

March 15, 2020

The previous post was about a debate between a Hollywood producer scornful of Michael Jackson and our reader ‘luv4hutch’ who sent us the text of their discussion and asked for a comment; and also some facts regarding the role of David Geffen in the life of Laura Nyro and Donna Summer, same as Michael Jackson’s.

The ruin of their careers revealed exactly the same modus operandi and is pointing to the same person in their immediate surrounding who put a hand to their destruction.

Here is the continuation of the debate and we begin where we left off – with David Geffen, of course and Project M on making a Peter Pan movie supposedly with Michael Jackson in the main role. The whole thing was a fake as it was never meant to be realized, but the scheme was elaborate and multi-task and resulted in putting the blame for its failure on Steven Spielberg which put an end to his friendship with Michael Jackson.

My interest in the debate is the frame of mind of people in Hollywood, and getting new facts, if any, to further clarify the picture around Michael Jackson then and now.

The reader Lu4hutch introduced his producer friend as follows:

“He is a good person, and we’ve done a lot of things together, especially creative writing projects. However, because of the extent of misbehavior in Hollywood, he is extremely jaded and cynical about everything and thus feels that everyone in the industry is fake and monstrous, so therefore Michael had to be, because “it’s not possible to be so cheery and naive and survive, especially if he truly was as innocent and helpless as he or his fans like to claim.”

He said that he knows for a fact was happening regarding “Hook”/”Project M” and that Michael was crowbarring his way in, not being strung along.”

The Producer’s vocabulary tells it all. Of course Michael Jackson was dying to make a Peter Pan movie as it was his lifetime dream, but if someone wants or even insists on something, it doesn’t mean that he should be strung along and deceived into thinking that his dream is finally coming true. And then be cynical enough to blame its inevitable end on someone else.

So the first thing I don’t believe is that the Producer is a good person. Cynics are never good. They judge others by their own standards which are too low for them to ever understand the innocent and the naive.

Reader: Geffen’s done far worse for people who’ve done less. He’s extremely petty. It wasn’t so much Michael turning him down alone, it was also that Geffen wanted him to leave Epic Records, but he never did. It’s also that Geffen continued to act as his friend, then betrayed him, undermining him, like the Spielberg “Hook” thing.

Producer: Michael was more interested, not very surprisingly, in the world-building eternally youthful part, not the “what if Peter Pan grew up” part. And even at a point when they’d already had serious discussions with Robin Williams, he was trying to convince them to go his direction. They told him to get a script drafted, but the chances of him actually getting his version made were slim to none. He and Spielberg were on two very different pages from the beginning. And it was one of many Peter Pan projects being shopped around at the time. A later business partner of Michael’s was helping develop a rock musical version of the story called Pandemonium (emphasis on the “Pan” – get it?) in that same era. It was to be set in the present, the Lost Boys were homeless kids who Peter sort of took under his wing when society cast them aside; it had a social justice angle that would be really popular today, actually.

This book and this article confirm that there was indeed a rock music version of Peter Pan story called Pandemonium but it was a Broadway musical and not ‘at that time’ but in 1987, three years prior to Project M. Pandemonium was to be set in the present, its main idea was to turn the three children in the original Peter Pan story into a trio of orphans who were abused children ‘trying to make decisions about their lives’ as its producers said. The message would certainly resonate with Michael Jackson, but since it was a Broadway musical I doubt that he could be involved.

Instead of Pandemonium the Producer could have mentioned a multitude of other Peter Pan projects one of which really belonged to Steven Spielberg and was almost ready to go into production in 1985, however he cooled to the idea and didn’t return to the subject until 1990.

Reader: Yes, I’m aware of all of that, but apparently Geffen strung Michael along around 1990 to say that “it’s different now” and was offering this as a serious project, and this Darlene Craviotto was a pawn in the game. First to act busy like this was happening, that Spielberg was doing what Michael wanted to do, and Disney and Jeffrey Katzenberg were part of it, then leave the news of “Oh, Steven’s left us and gone for a warring project at TriStar and Robin Williams.” Leaving Spielberg as the fall guy, and Geffen to look like Michael’s friend and protector. After all, the meetings Craviotto claims to have been at with Spielberg and Katzenberg appear to have actually been Katzenberg and Geffen, but the story is rewritten to again keep up Geffen’s narrative.

Producer: It wasn’t a warring project. It was the same project.

The timeline doesn’t support the Producer’s version. The timing of Hook and Project M was indeed close but still different. Darlene Craviotto was hired by Disney and began writing the script in mid February. She says that her first consultations with Michael Jackson were on February 21, 1990 (the night of the Grammys) and this was when Project M was already underway.

And Steven Spielberg learned of ‘Hook’ only in March when his former agent Medavoy took a job with Tristar/Sony/Columbia and sent him the script, after which Spielberg quickly committed to direct it. For five years prior to that Spielberg had no interest in the original version of the Peter Pan story – his mindset drastically changed when his son was born in June 1985 and since then Spielberg has focused on the family and not children separated from their homes.

Hook was being developed by Hart and director Nick Castle at TriStar when the Japanese electronics giant Sony bought Columbia-TriStar in 1989.

The following year, Sony hired Mike Medavoy to run TriStar. Medavoy, who had been Spielberg’s first agent, sent Hart’s script to Spielberg, who quickly committed to direct it.

[“Peter Pan on Stage and Screen, 1904-2010″]

So the projects were different in time and concept, and were devised by two different companies. In the summer of 1990 only ‘Hook’ went forward as the rights to produce the movie were with Sony/Columbia anyway and not Disney.

Thus Project M wasn’t a warring or same project – it was simply a fraud, a kind of an air balloon doomed to burst at the end of the party and meant to only create the impression of a competing (or same) project.

Producer: TriStar wanted Robin Williams and Spielberg’s approach, Michael had tentative not-very-strong interest from Disney in his. And it was the only reason they were humoring him. Film financing is hard even when you’re a heavyweight.

Reader: Yes, but again that’s part of what Geffen was feeding Michael, with his honeyed words of misinformation. And Disney was part of this scheme, even though Disney didn’t have the rights and the al-Fayed family had firmly snapped them up.

The Producer is indeed cynical through and through if he calls the Project M mocking trick just humoring Jackson and makes it sound like no big deal. I wonder how he will feel if his business partners encourage him to toil on his favorite project for four months and then drop it raising their arms in feigned despair, all the time knowing that it was a joke?

What really matters is that Michael Jackson was sure that the project was genuine. Michael was indeed naïve to think that David Geffen was acting on his promise to get him into the movies, which was how their friendship started at all (in mid-‘80s Michael even retained Geffen as his movie agent). And though by 1990 Geffen’s activity in this respect had brought zero result, Michael still didn’t find fault with him and let Geffen get a firm hold of his business affairs.

David Geffen [LA Weekly]

In the summer of 1990 Geffen’s power grab of Michael’s business was complete – John Branca was dismissed, Frank Dileo had long been fired and was replaced by Sandy Gallin, and Walter Yetnikoff of CBS/Sony/Columbia was on his way out for Tommy Mottola, loyal to the new team, to step in.

So though according to Darlene Craviotto only Jeffrey Katzenberg of Disney and allegedly Spielberg were involved in the Project M fake, David Geffen had to be part of it in any case – he was Michael Jackson’s main business advisor at the moment, especially in terms of the movies, not to mention the fact that Geffen’s office was at Amblin, the seat of Steven Spielberg and this was where the meeting on Project M supposedly took place.

Movie projects for Michael Jackson were also part of his new deal with Sony/Columbia arranged by the Geffen-backed team at the end of that year and this is why Michael regarded all of it as solid and genuine.

This is apparently why in 1990 he talked so much with the Robson family about his big plans of going into the movies. Joy Robson now blames Michael for not keeping his promises, though Michael didn’t promise anything but was daydreaming only, and was a victim of a big fraud himself.

And Michael was indeed naïve, because even the smartest people with an innocent frame of mind are naïve and trusting – they simply cannot imagine the depth of lows others are capable of, same as the other side cannot imagine anything different than their own cynicism and immorality.

To be able to survive in Hollywood one had to be their kind which Michael was not, and this is why he did not survive and had to live through the most part of his short life in a torturous and struggling mode.


The point I once again need to stress is that Project M was not mere fun created to humor Michael Jackson, but was a full-fledged business commitment that turned out to be just a cynical joke made at Michael’s expense with a side bonus of souring his relationship with Steven Spielberg.

Judging by the article sent to me by Darlene Craviotto, Project M was actually only part of Michael Jackson’s multi-project agreement with Walt Disney Co. taking place in February-June 1990.

The Los Angeles Daily News article below says that Disney agreed to develop five new Jackson-oriented attractions for their theme parks and three movies, as well as involve a trio of George Lucas, Francis Coppola and Steven Spielberg in the production of Project M.

Michael Jackson was also said to be in negotiations to change his label from CBS/Sony/Columbia for Disney Hollywood Records, their newly created music subsidiary.

The article I am talking about didn’t actually break this news but was reporting only on the ripples of the havoc created earlier by the Hollywood Reporter which was the only outlet to ever leak information about Project M.

The backlash against the Hollywood Reporter was harsh, immediate and amazing – the news was quickly retracted, the Disney executives went into complete denial, Darlene Craviotto was unavailable for comment,  disciplinary action was taken against the journalists who reported the story and an investigation was started to determine the identity of the person behind the release. And the icing on the cake was the accusation of the secretary suspected of the leak of ‘lying, cheating and misappropriation of funds.’

However the news looked absolutely true as the agreement in question was printed on Walt Disney Co. stationery and was published with the endorsement of a very-well informed Hollywood Reporter music editor Jeffrey Jolson-Colburn who also wrote for such outlets as Grammy Magazine, Rock Magazine, Woodstock and E! Online.

Now we know that Project M did exist and it was Disney’s reaction to the news that was phony, so we are inclined to think that there was at least a tentative agreement between MJ and Disney, only it was on paper only and its sole goal was imitating business activity around Jackson.

And considering that even the immediate staff involved in Project M was so intimidated that they were afraid to say a word, our Producer friend can know about this project only what he was allowed to know – no more, no less.

Unsolved mystery: Disney release

By Frank Swertlow

The hunt is on – not for “Red October’ but for the mystery person who issued a bogus press release announcing a new multimillion-dollar deal between Walt Disney Studios and Michael Jackson.

The release, issued Monday and reported as the lead story in the Hollywood Reporter Tuesday, was followed by a major retraction from the news publication Wednesday, and disciplinary action against the reported responsible for the story.

In the press release, issued on Walt Disney Co. stationery and clearly written by somebody familiar with Disney’s operation, it was announced that a “multiproject agreement” had been reached with Michael Jackson that included five new Jackson-oriented attractions for the Disney theme parks, a three-movie deal and a $50 million to 60 million flick to be produced by George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Francia Coppola, tentatively titled “Project M.”

The release also said Jackson was negotiating to transfer his recording contract from CBS Records to Disney’s new Hollywood Records label. None of that was true.

A spokesman for Disney told Hollywood Freeway that an investigation is taking place to find the identity of the person behind the fake release. Asked whether Disney believed it originated within the company, the spokesman said: “I can’t really say. It was on company stationery. However, it didn’t real like a press release. It read more like someone’s idea of what a trade article would say.”

But whoever wrote the release was clearly familiar with Disney and film-industry personnel. Inquiries, for instance, were directed to Amanda Moore, a studio secretary, and the release named Darlene Craviotto (a screenwriter responsible for NBC’s 1985 movie “Love is Never Silent”) as the writer of “Project M.”

Craviotto was unavailable for comment, but her agents, the Lynn Pleshette Agency, expressed surprise at hearing about the reference to Craviotto within the release. Meanwhile, in a fax previously sent to the trade papers, Moore was accused of “lying, cheating and misappropriation of funds.”

Asked if she was the target of a disgruntled rival employee, Moore replied: “I don’t know. I really would rather not comment.” She also refused to speculate on who it might be. “I have no idea whatsoever,” she said. “I’m trying to get out of this loop.”

With the Hollywood Reporter issuing a retraction before Disney even asked for one, the matter seems to be closed – except for Jeffrey Jolson-Colburn, the reporter whose byline ran with the original story and who specializes in the music beat.  “There has been some disciplinary action taken against Jeffrey,” confirmed Teri Ritzer, editor of the Reporter, who declined to confirm reports that he had been fired. Beyond that, she told Hollywood Freeway, “I don’t have any other comment.”

The above is a specimen of a rare type of fake news when the truth is presented as a lie.

If our Producer still considers all of the above innocent fun, all I can say is that some people need to examine their conscience, while we can only register as fact the horrible lying machine Michael Jackson was facing and a betrayal awaiting him at his every step.

The Associated press, by the way, also reported the news about Project M in their piece dated March 1, 1990 and this places the Hollywood Reporter news right at the time when the Disney Peter Pan fraud was already in full swing while Steven Spielberg had not even begun working on his ‘Hook’ – another confirmation that the projects were different and not the same.

Disney Fuming Over Phony Report of Michael Jackson Picture Deal

SCOTT RECKARD March 1, 1990

LOS ANGELES (AP) _ The Walt Disney Co. scoured Hollywood on Wednesday for the source of a bogus news release that claimed moonwalking megastar Michael Jackson had signed a five-year movie deal with Disney.

Disney said it began an investigation to find the author of the release, used as the basis for a story in a trade publication. Among other things, the story said Jackson was negotiating to leave CBS Records for Disney’s new Hollywood Records and would design theme park rides for Disney.

″We fully intend to take action against the person or persons responsible,″ Walt Disney Studios Chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg said in a news release. ″This company has a reputation for protecting its name and taking legal action when necessary.″[ ]

Disney said the news release, typed on company stationery, was sent to several publications. Spokesman Ed Pine said it appeared to have been motivated by a personal vendetta against a Disney employee and said the hoaxer hadn’t been found, but refused to discuss the matter further. [ ]

The initial Hollywood Reporter story included a description of a movie that Jackson supposedly would make with Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola. The outer-space musical, tentatively titled ″Project M,″ was said to have a budget of between $50 million and $60 million.

Jackson stars at Disneyland in the 3-D movie ″Captain EO,″ which opened in 1986 and was produced by Lucas, Coppola and Jackson.

Full text:

Three film directors are mentioned again, so as of March 1, 1990 probably all of them were promised to Michael Jackson by the fraudsters with no particular name singled out yet, and this makes the story about Spielberg running Project M from its start even less plausible than we originally thought.

Actually the fact that someone is so keen on implicating Steven Spielberg in the ugly fraud and is so willing to turn him into a fall guy is another worrisome aspect of the story.

This is where we drop our Producer as there is a need to find out why and who is doing it to Spielberg.


Steven Spielberg

Darlene Craviotto’s book was the first to leave a disquieting feeling that its target was not only Jackson but Steven Spielberg too.

Simple logic suggests that if we know the power players who stood behind the 1990 Project M and who suddenly permitted the scriptwriter to disclose the secret in 2011 (presenting it as genuine of course), we will have to ask why these power players decided to reveal this news at that particular moment and why Craviotto was directed to portray Spielberg as a villain who ruined it all.

The target audience of the book was millions and millions of Michael Jackson’s fans who could easily turn on Spielberg for his alleged pulling the plug at the last moment and treating Michael in so ruthless a way.

Fortunately this did not happen because the readers’ attention was diverted by a different matter – they were astonished by Darlene Craviotto’s sudden back-stabbing of Jackson and her insinuations about an innocent scene in his condo when at the end of May 1990 she came to read the final script for the fake movie and found Michael Jackson in the company of a Hollywood veteran Buz Kohan and ‘a boy from New Zealand’ (aka Wade Robson from Australia), which sent her running to her agent the next morning and tell him about her ‘suspicions.’

But even if we put the book aside another reason why Spielberg seems to be a target in this game of thrones is the regular outbreak of similar suspicions about him.

These rumors have been circulating at least since the time Corey Feldman began talking about pedophilia in Hollywood, but recently there was another attempt to accuse Spielberg.

It was in February 2018 and the website spreading the nasty rumor was ….. the facebook page of Wade Robson’s supporters.

The place and time where the rumor struck again are extremely telling, and actually help us to put all pieces of the puzzle together and tie all these strange events into one knot.

Because tell me who your friend is and I will tell you who you are. ©

And the same goes for your foes.

The rumor regarding Spielberg spread by Michael’s foes is a dead give-away of who is who in this situation, and what’s remarkable about it is that these people don’t even try to hide how much they hope to have the reputation of Spielberg ruined.

Here is an excerpt (I have the links but am not willing to post them) :

 Back when Steven Spielberg was in the talks to bring Peter Pan to the big screen reports of the day said Michael Jackson would be in the lead role. However the rumors of Michael Jackson’s inappropriate behavior with children were being made public and the idea of MJ as a man child on the Big Screen became not such a marketable idea.
So what about Steven Spielberg why would he ever have any sort of business or personal relationship with a man who had such questionable behaviors. The fact is that there have been many rumors about Stephen Spielberg’s strange obsession with children in his films. Some have claimed because of his high stature that if anything inappropriate happened it would never be made public. But it is now 2018 and the days of distant whispers are now becoming boisterous and public accusations of abuse.
I have a sinking suspicion that this story will become quite massive. I will keep you posted.

The above was accompanied by a filthy video address to Spielberg created by someone who introduces himself as an ‘entertainer’ whose videos ‘not always represent facts and evidence’ and ‘contain rumors, conjecture, and fiction’. The author’s disclaimer says that ‘certain situations, characters and events portrayed in my videos are either products of my imagination or are used fictitiously. Information presented in my videos may contain errors or inaccuracies.’

Calling one’s own videos trash is commendable of course, however the problem is that no one reads the disclaimer. Judging by the comment the viewers fell for the rumor, though the whole thing is screaming of provocation – the goal of these anonymous people is to spin the story out of thin air, send it around and make it massive until most people think that “there is no smoke without fire”.

Needless to say that the method is too familiar to those who know what was done to Michael Jackson and how.  

However it is exactly this easily recognizable modus operandi and the intensity of the effort that show that the campaign against Steven Spielberg is deliberate, the allegations are a lie and that the reason for trashing Spielberg can be only his quiet opposition to what is being done to Michael Jackson, and possibly his disapproval of other vicious games played in Hollywood.

Otherwise it will be difficult to explain why this particular rumor is being told about a person who has never given a reason to allege so horrible a thing about him.

Someone must be extremely worried that Steven Spielberg may tell the truth about the way things are done in Hollywood – about the phony Project M for example, and the role of various people in it, hence their attempt to neutralize him in advance by implying him to be a ‘partner in crime’.

The dirt thrown at Spielberg also has a strange regularity about it and surprisingly always coincides with the crucial periods in Michael Jackson’s life. Actually it is these coincidences that create the impression of someone deliberately restraining Spielberg from telling the truth as if saying to him, “See what will be told about you if you dare a comment?”

For instance, when the 1993 scandal broke out about Michael Jackson’s alleged misbehavior towards Jordan Chandler, a certain Adam Parfrey suddenly published a filthy piece about Steven Spielberg alleging the same about him and on totally absurd grounds.

Adam Parfrey

Adam Parfrey made a name for himself by publishing ‘the provocative, the vile and the perverse’ and his  fabrication about Spielberg is based solely on name-calling. The “Jurassic Park” movie is the “Pederastic Park” in the author’s opinion, and Captain Hook is the “the classically pederastic fantasy figure” where Spielberg allegedly “projects his own tendencies onto his villain, a strategy employed by Hitchcock and other directors renowned for their sadistic inclinations”.

The article is full of observations like “is it merely accidental that another pederastic magazine goes by the acronym P.A.N. (Paedo Alert News)?” and quotes a NAMBLA member whose phone number the author happens to know and who said: “A lot of the members have been talking about Hook, telling me how much they enjoyed it” – thus putting an equal mark between the director of the movie, millions of viewers who liked it and some perverts who will enjoy anything featuring young children, even innocent movies like ‘Beethoven’ or ‘Home Alone’.

Here is a sample of how Adam Parfrey opens up the deepest secrets of his own mind and projects his own tendencies onto Spielberg:

This garbage about Steven Spielberg is by Adam Parfrey

However, it was E.T., Spielberg’s most exalted triumph, which seems to clothe boy-love fantasy in New Age vestments. Spielberg uses every trick in the director’s chapbook to induce us to love a wrinkled, potbellied cosmic interloper that hides in boys’ closets and communicates with a glowing, phallic finger.

It was young Henry Thomas’s taunt to his twelve-year-old celluloid brother—”penis breath”—that had Spielberg conjure, if only for a disturbing instant, the image of a bald-faced lad with a cock in his mouth.

The above is a medical diagnosis, guys. Only a person with pedophilia inclinations is capable of interpreting a totally innocent movie in so horrid a way.

This garbage was printed in 1993, the crucial year in Michael Jackson’s life and has since been forgotten. However almost twenty years later somebody dug it out from oblivion, turned it into a pdf file and sent it circulating all over the Internet. And you know when exactly it happened?

It happened in September 2011, two months before the release of Darlene Craviotto’s book on Nov. 8, 2011 which among other things also targeted Spielberg and portrayed him in the most unfavorable light.

Incidentally both events took place half a year before Wade Robson made his first allegations against MJ on May 8, 2012 during a certain insight-oriented therapy. You remember that the main focus of Craviotto’s book was her suspicion about young Robson and Michael Jackson based solely on seeing them together (with Buz Kohan) during the reading session in 1990, which some twenty years later suddenly came extremely handy for Robson’s allegations.

And now that we see the nasty lie about Spielberg being spread by Wade Robson’s supporters, things have finally come full circle and now we have every reason to believe that Michael Jackson and Steven Spielberg are being dogged by one and same people, and that the smear campaign against both is coordinated from one source.

When Corey Feldman spoke about rampant pedophilia in Hollywood and people began to speculate about various personalities there, Feldman was infuriated by rumors about Spielberg and was adamant that IT WAS NOT HIM. In fact it was Spielberg who saved Corey from falling apart by introducing him to Michael Jackson with whom the boy managed to regain some of his innocence and lost childhood.

And if Spielberg was able to spot the right place for children it means that he definitely knows what is going on in Hollywood and who the real perpetrators are, and is keeping mum only not to create more trouble for himself than he already has.

Some will probably wonder how come Steven Spielberg may be a supporter of Michael Jackson if Michael reportedly placed him on his ‘enemy list’? Whether enemy or not, the rift was certainly there, but it happened due to Michael’s grave misinformation by his then business partners that it was Spielberg who ruined his dream of making a Peter Pan movie, while in reality it was done by them.

Others will wonder how Spielberg could be supportive of Michael if he is best friends with David Geffen who, by Michael’s own account sank his career?

Not so fast please as we still have the memoirs of Julia Phillips who revealed that Geffen never had any tender feelings towards Spielberg and all of it was business only. When their Dreamworks joint venture fell apart, it seems that very little was left of their former friendship.


Julia Phillips

Julia Phillips was a whistleblower who wrote in 1991 an autobiography portraying Hollywood’s underbelly in all its incredible ugliness and aptly called “You’ll Never Eat Lunch In This Town Again.”

Her name was mentioned in Adam Parfrey’s fabrication about Spielberg where he used it for a purely practical purpose – his intention was to show Spielberg as a drug-addict, so in addition to everything else he implied that the latter took part in Julia’s continual cocaine concatenations.

Julia Phillips was indeed a horrible cocaine addict. But she was also an extremely successful young Hollywood producer who at the age of 29 was the first woman to win Oscar for best picture (‘The Sting” starring Paul Newman and Robert Redford) and then produced major hits like Martin Scorsese’s ‘Taxi Driver’ and Steven Spielberg’s ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind’.

Her autobiography is not available online, but judging by the comments the only bad thing she said about Spielberg was that he did try pot with her and it sent him coughing. In contrast to Adam Parfrey, her opinion about Spielberg’s E.T. couldn’t be more complimentary – she said that it was perfect.

Julia Phillips with Steven Spielberg

Her lab rats included even those she admired: In this interview she cited Steven Spielberg (”He’s become a business and an icon, but E.T. was as far as you could take a movie. Perfect”)

However she claimed that her cocaine habit exacerbated because of Spielberg’s perfectionism.

“Cocaine had never been a problem before,” she insists. “It was only after I started working with Steven [Spielberg]. He was such a perfectionist.”

Spielberg himself, Phillips concedes in ‘Lunch’, found her so wired he dubbed her the Madwoman of Beverly Hills.

The fun fact about Julia Phillips is that she was friends with both Spielberg and Geffen and had a grudge against both of them as she was fired by both at different moments in her life.

Spielberg fired her in 1977 at the post-production stage of ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind’ movie because of her cocaine habit and as rumor had it, for giving Amy Irving coke in the ladies’ room.

And Geffen fired her from her own project ‘Interview With the Vampire’ (1989) which she brought to him after years of developing and nurturing it with Anne Rice, writer of the novel. In Geffen’s case the most probable reason for her dismissal was the fact that she waggled her tongue about his real attitude towards Spielberg.

And his real attitude towards Spielberg was seeing him as ‘selfish, self-centered, egomaniacal and greedy’:

She quotes the producer David Geffen as calling her former best friend Steven Spielberg “selfish, self-centered, egomaniacal, and worst of all — greedy,” and adds that she thinks it is “a pretty good description.”

Quoting Geffen in her book was Julia Phillips’s mistake, big mistake. It cost her the coveted producing job with Geffen which was her first after a long break. After being fired by Spielberg she apparently found Geffen to be a sympathetic listener to her complaints and he turned out to be equally derisive of the film-maker, but when she noted it in her book it sent Geffen into a fury – his views on Spielberg were obviously not meant for anyone else’s ears.

The thing is that in 1991 Geffen was officially on very good terms with Spielberg, and three years after the release of Julia Phillips’s book the two of them and Jeffrey Katzenberg even founded a new Dreamworks film studio together. In 2008 they went different ways again and it was then that Spielberg recalled the lesson taught to him by Steve Ross:

From Mr. Ross, said Mr. Spielberg, he and Mr. Geffen had learned now-fading rules that once governed Hollywood. The most basic, he said, was to “keep your friends close, and your enemies far away.”

Mr. Geffen, of course, is still a friend. But not quite so close, professionally speaking, as he was only a few weeks ago.

At this point it dawns on us that in 2011 when Darlene Craviotto was writing her book about ‘Project M’ Geffen and Spielberg saw each other only as former close friends who weren’t ‘quite so close’ any more.

However in 1991 their friendship was still blossoming, so no wonder that Geffen immediately disavowed anything said by Julia Phillips and fired her, having ‘plenty to say’ about her according to the LA Times:

Hollywood Chokes on ‘Lunch’: Producer Julia Phillips’ scathing account of her drug-filled years in the film industry of the ‘70s has a lot of insiders on edge


MARCH 4, 1991

…Her one-time best buddy Spielberg is “selfish, self-centered, egomaniacal, and worst of all–greedy.” Actually, those are the words she claims came out of producer David Geffen’s mouth not too long ago. But then Phillips hastens to add in her book she agrees with this assessment. (Geffen insists her account of his discussions are dead wrong.) Spielberg comes off throughout as an ambitious backbiter.

Geffen has plenty to say about Phillips. “She has so many things wrong in that book, yet she talks about her photographic memory. She takes apart everyone in the community. People are aghast that she would write such an ugly, mean-spirited book.

“I don’t know who she imagines she is. She was one of a group of people who had three successful movies, all prior to 1976. But she imagines she is one of the most talented people in town, and the most beautiful.”

Geffen fired her from the “Vampire” project after reading the book, which, he said, completely misrepresented his meetings with her. Phillips, however, doesn’t plan to make it easy for Geffen to make the firing stick. Already, she has returned the $7,500 check Geffen sent to buy off her contract.

Geffen was still Julia Phillips’s boss at the moment of writing the book and this is probably why she was relatively gentle to him, by her standards of course. She just called him the ‘most money-obsessed person’ she knew and described him as being the ‘Donald Trump of Show Business’ adding a couple of personal shots at his looks.

Towards others in Hollywood she was much more relentless. Insiders called her description of Hollywood true but bitchy:

March 18, 1991

Liza Minnelli, at the 1976 Golden Globe Awards, is reported snorting coke behind the stall in the ladies’ room. During the filming of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Richard Dreyfuss has a propensity for downing eight ounces of vodka in a few fast gulps and one day passes out on the set. Director Martin Scorsese cast Cybill Shepherd in Taxi Driver “for her big ass, a retro Italian gesture.”

Despite the anecdotes Martin Scorsese was Julia Phillips’s favorite film-director. She used to say about him, ‘Martin Scorsese hasn’t won the Oscar because the Academy doesn’t like geniuses’.

Julia Phlilips and Martin Scorsese

The Guardian, 3 Jan 2002:

In the course of the book, Phillips managed to insult a large portion of the industry’s elite, dismissing Newman as “seriously weird”, lambasting Goldie Hawn for her lack of personal hygiene, and claiming that fashion designer turned film-maker Joel Schumacher was “a better window dresser than film director.”

Most notoriously, the book claimed that Warren Beatty had once requested a threesome with Phillips and her 12-year-old daughter. [She replied, “We’re both too old for you”].

Inevitably its publication sounded the death knell for Phillips’s career as a producer. After reading that Phillips had likened him to “a middle-aged baby”, movie mogul David Geffen immediately fired her from the production of Interview With the Vampire. She never worked in films again.

Julia Phillips herself was disappointed that her critics didn’t see past the barbs. Of Warren Beatty she said:

”Why are people so crazed? Don’t they realize that’s how Warren says hello?” she asks.

Well, if this is the way people say hello in Hollywood, it shows that things have gone so far there that jokes about having sex with a child are perfectly acceptable and thought to be funny. Indeed, sometimes a joke can reveal more than a serious study.

However Julia Phillips was frustrated that everyone focused on her occasional barbs, while her main message was against the moguls who took over Hollywood in the ‘80s and turned it into a ‘mean, ruthless and nasty place’ it had not been before.

The New York Times, March 14, 1991:

“These are all people who wake up in the morning, look in the mirror and say, ‘Are they going to find out I’m a fraud today?‘ “Ms. Phillips said, as she nursed a vodka. “That’s about 90 percent of the town, which is why they’ve been so fearful and so nasty.”

Ms. Phillips, who will turn 47 next month, blames “the suits” for what she called Hollywood’s “meanness, ruthlessness and nastiness in the 80’s, which wasn’t there before.

“There were games before, there were a lot of players before, but there wasn’t this abrasiveness and lack of breeding, as my mother would say. When I started, there were people who wanted to do great things.”

April 4, 1991

Phillips maintains that she struck a nerve in the book others are afraid to acknowledge. The creative side of the business, she says, has been usurped by businessmen.

“After the book came out, I got all these calls from writers and directors thanking me because they feel so crushed by this new corporate fascist process,” Phillips said.

Some of her observations about women in Hollywood are very much to the point and relevant today:

The New York Times, August 17, 1995

 “You hear so much about the strides that women have made in the industry. But it seems to me that the ones who break through still do it playing whores or serial murderers.”

“I also think for the women out here, unless you become a plastic-surgery endorsement, it’s over, you know. You get past the age of 30, you’re over the hill.” She laughed. Women’s status is equally bleak in the movie business, she said. “It seems to me that the women being allowed to succeed try to strike this nonsexual persona that’s actually pretty unattractive,” she said. “It’s not just the clothes. A vibe can be armor, too. And I think most of them are scared. This is really a scared town, anyway. Except for 10 guys, who are scared only half the time, everyone else is scared, and women are more scared than any man.”

Julia Phillips was especially ridiculed for disliking Don Simpson, the creator of what she called ‘testosterone-driven movies that accelerated the stupidity of the American public and hardened male attitudes to women.’

The Telegraph 04 Jan 2002:

Don Simpson

Meanwhile, she did not hold back from expressing her views on the decline of the film industry during the 1980s.

Chief among the villains, in her estimation, was the late Don Simpson, inventor of “high concept” action movies, and the producer responsible for such films as Top Gun, Flashdance and Beverly Hills Cop.

These she dismissed as “terrible testosterone-driven movies that have accelerated the stupidity of the American public and have hardened male attitudes to women”.

Simpson himself was a “pig” with a “twinkly-simian lust for rough sex”.

Don Simpson was indeed a rare pig. The man who met him while he was in detox on a health farm called him the epitome of Hollywood, a male animal and ‘a kind of person who made your skin crawl.’

This animalistic character was sort of representing Hollywood in the 90s, but what’s noteworthy is that despite his life being ‘an unnatural act’ as some people call it, no one talked about it, preferring to go after the clean-living Michael Jackson instead.

Anyone who still has an ounce of common sense left should wonder why Don Simpson’s immorality was totally silenced by the press and why at the very same time the media trashed Michael Jackson on a daily basis and called him Wacko Jacko for innocent things like a pet chimp in his home or a photo in a hyperbaric chamber made in the burning center that treated him for a burn.

Just free your mind from the usual media stereotypes and look at Don Simpson through the eyes of a reader in the early ‘90s, and ask yourself a question – why was the media so vicious towards Jackson and so sweet to Don Simpson?


If you compare the media turning a blind eye and deaf ear to Don Simpson indulgences with the constant mockery of Michael Jackson’s every single step, you will realize that the Hollywood brass used Michael as a means to divert attention from their own debauchery, drug-taking, sleazy sex, plastic surgery, you name it, and apparently had a good laugh at the gullibility of the public who fell for their trick.

If we are to believe the media, they discovered Don Simpson’s depravity only after his death, but even then they downplayed it, making reserved and respectable ‘scientific’ comment which is in no way comparable to their frantic screams about Michael Jackson (who by the way died totally clean of any narcotics).

Here are just a few snippets of what the media suddenly learned of Don Simpson after his death in 1996 at the age of 52.

The LA Times, August 18, 1996

It was no secret in Hollywood that producer Don Simpson had a drug problem. But the depth of his addiction was not revealed until the night he died.

The coroner’s toxicology report revealed that Simpson died from an overdose of 21 drugs, including cocaine and a broad spectrum of stimulants, antidepressants, sedatives and tranquilizers.

“This case is a classic example of why they call these things dangerous drugs,” said Steve Simmons, the California Medical Board senior investigator involved in the Simpson probe. “Everybody understands how lethal street drugs like heroin are, but it takes a prescription overdose by someone famous like Don Simpson to drive home the fact that pharmaceutical medications are just as deadly.”

‘Don Simpson Passes Away’, 02.02.1996:

Simpson’s personal troubles were mounting. “He’d been taking uppers and downers,” says Towne. “He took speed to work, and then he’d take downers to come down. Speed up, slow down, speed up, slow down. Sooner or later, the body rebels.” Says screenwriter James Toback,“I know that both David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg had pressured him to go into a program.”

Of course they did. Don Simpson was part of their very close-knit circle called by Wiki “The Killer Dillers” – the aggressive team of producers mentored by Barry Diller who later turned into big-time media executives in their own right – Michael Eisner, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Dawn Steel, Garth Ancier and Don Simpson.

Don Simpson’s escapades were difficult not to notice as they were going on year after year, however the media did manage to overlook.

Wall Street Journal, January 1, 1996:

At night, he led a life that a number of people close to him thought was growing increasingly dangerous. He had always been known for his appetite for prostitutes; he was close friends with Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss.

But Mr. Simpson was going beyond sex, sinking deeper into increasingly sadomasochistic and destructive behavior, say people who know him. His reputation was such that he is the subject of an entire chapter — titled “Don Simpson: An Education in Pain” — in a salacious new book penned by four Hollywood prostitutes. The book, “You’ll Never Make Love in This Town Again,” says his “serious bondage games were like something out of Marquis de Sade.”

The prostitutes actually called Don Simpson a vicious sadist who did things ‘the most men would go to jail for.’ As to other men in Hollywood they said they were incapable of ordinary humanity.

The Irish Times:

“The men featured in ‘You’ll Never Make Love’ are so accustomed to having their every whim answered immediately that, they no longer appear capable of ordinary humanity. Producer Don Simpson, for example, who died earlier this year, is depicted as a vicious sadist. Men such as Simpson, writes Tiffany “have the luxury of being able to do to young women things that most men would go to jail for“.

The world in which these call girls work is, they insist, very far involved from that of Pretty Woman. It’s not just that they are often physically assaulted and some of the sado masochism described in these pages is truly horrific but they also have to tolerate dishonesty and deception. “Hollywood is a boys’ club and the dreams that get fulfilled here are mostly male fantasies.” Even if not every tale included in You’ll Never Make Love is true, the book still stands as a devastating indictment of the world’s most important entertainment centre and its key players.

But when Don Simpson died in January 1996 the news reporting the sad event was for the most part solemn, dignified, so very appropriate for the death of a legendary producer and so very subdued. Even his drug consumption was ‘legendary’.

  • His legendary consumption knew no bounds. This unrestrained excess killed him and sent a warning cry throughout the industry.”

  • Nobody in Hollywood was shocked. When first told, a saddened Michael Eisner said he’d been expecting the bad news for the last 20 years.

  • “Don lived exactly the life he wanted to live,” director Joel Schumacher told Entertainment Weekly. “He had all the opportunities, all the intelligence, all the friends, all of the knowledge to have changed his life at any time. And he didn’t want to.”

After a long search for anything critical about Don Simpson and comparable to what they said about Michael Jackson, I found that only the Irish media used appropriate words for that character, but even they printed their verdict only after Charles Fleming wrote Simpson’s biography and revealed the depth of his depravity.

This piece from the Irish Times says that Hollywood lost connection to reality and created real-life monsters scarier than fictional Dracula.

A dive into decadence

Sat, Jun 13, 1998, 01:00

Over the past 75 years Hollywood has lost whatever fleeting connection to reality it may once have possessed, and become more outlandish than one of its own storylines. During the boom years of the 1980s, in particular the film industry hurtled to unprecedented heights, creating, along the way, a cast of real-life monsters far scarier than fictional fiends such as Godzilla or Dracula could ever hope to be.

One such was the producer Don Simpson, the man who is generally credited with inventing the kind of film now known as the high-concept blockbuster.

When he was making Top Gun, according to a former assistant, “He was split between the cocaine and the alcohol. At 4 p.m., he’d start on the 25-year-old Macallan. He’d be so loaded he could hardly walk. Then at five or so, he’d start on the cocaine. He’d spend the whole afternoon in and out of the bathroom.” That was in 1985.

A decade later Simpson decided to clean up his act. In the summer of 1995 he hired a doctor, Stephen Ammerman, to come to live with him in an attempt to beat his addiction to illegal drugs – but the detox plan went slightly awry when Ammerman was found dead in Simpson’s bathroom, having injected himself with four times the lethal amount of prescription-strength morphine.

The L.A.P.D. detective David Miller discovered that for the three-week period prior to Ammerman’s death, Simpson’s bill for prescription drugs at one pharmacy alone amounted to $12,902. That was at one pharmacy, using only his own name: when he added the multiple aliases, nine doctors and the eight or so pharmacies Simpson was known to use regularly, Miller came up with a total of $75,000 a month for painkillers, antidepressants, anxiety medications – and dozens of other drugs used to treat the side-effects caused by the mix-and-match cocktail.

A handsome man [ ] Simpson nevertheless spent a small fortune on plastic surgery. In one six-year period he had collagen implants in his cheeks and chin, a forehead lift and a restructuring of the eyebrows, liposuction to flatten his belly, a buttock lift, collagen injections in his lips and injections of fat into his penis.

There was a lot of swelling and fever. “In the end they had to take out whatever it was they put in there . . . ”

Hollywood wept and held memorial services; but reading this biography, it’s hard not to agree with the man who met him while he was in detox on a health farm. “He was,” he said, “the epitome – as a successful man, as a representative of Hollywood, as a male animal – of the kind of person who made your skin crawl.”

As a further note on Don Simpson’s work and professional style the following chapter from Charles Fleming’s book gives us a glimpse of how the ‘Days of Thunder’ movie starring Tom Cruise was produced by Don Simpson in 1990:

APRIL 22, 1998

Days of Thunder was meant to be Paramount Pictures’ biggest summer movie. Midway through production, though, bad news from the set was filtering back to Hollywood.

By now the budget had ballooned to $70 million. But Simpson, who had turned Cruise into a bona fide movie star with Top Gun seemed unperturbed. The Thunder location was a permanent party. By day, from his suites at the Daytona Beach Marriott, Simpson would dispatch two assistants to area beaches, to ask attractive young women if they wanted to attend a party for Tom Cruise. By night, the women would join Simpson, Bruckheimer, Cruise, screenwriter Robert Towne and Scott for dinner and after-hours discotheque dancing. The booze and the cocaine — kept in steady supply — were plentiful. “One morning I found three bags of cocaine stuck behind a cushion on the sofa,” one assistant remembers. “Simpson had been pounding on my door at 4 a.m., yelling at me to come and party.”

After rising late — “basically, he would sleep all day,” a source on the set remembers — while Bruckheimer oversaw the actual production of the movie, Simpson would work out every day on equipment specially ordered from a list supplied by muscular movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger.

And then there was the script, by all accounts incomplete when shooting started. When production and editing ended, the script was still painfully pedestrian and full of howlingly unlikely moments.

Privately, midway through production, Simpson’s enthusiasm was waning. Thunder was a mess. Having begun production without a fully completed script, Cruise and the others were being fed new pages every morning and new lines even as they worked. For a while, Cruise read new lines off the dashboard of his speeding stock car, until keeping his eyes off the road caused him to crash.

“The movie was a disaster while we were shooting,” says a source from the set. “It was taking so long, and we weren’t getting it.” We didn’t finish shooting principal photography until May, and we were supposed to release the movie in May, and we still weren’t finished.”

Simpson was demoralized. One afternoon, Weber found him sitting with his head in his hands. “We’re fucked,” he moaned. “We’re fucked. There’s no story here. We barely have a first act, and then we don’t have anything after that.”

Warren Beatty as Dick Tracy, 1990

Memorial Day marked Thunder’s release date. It would open against Disney’s big-budget Dick Tracy, a vanity project directed by and starring Warren Beatty. Beatty was a friend, and a nearby Bel Air neighbor, and Disney’s film division was run by Jeffrey Katzenberg, formerly Simpson’s assistant at Paramount. Taunting Katzenberg, Simpson sent a fax: “You can’t escape the thunder!” Katzenberg faxed back: “You won’t believe how big my Dick is!”

Lacing through the thundering racing action was music from Jeff Beck, Joan Jett and the team of Elton John and Bernie Taupin.”

The mess with ‘Days of Thunder explains why David Geffen was so desperate to get a Michael Jackson’s cover version of ‘Come Together’ for the movie for which his record company was putting out the soundtrack album.

The situation was a disaster and MJ’s thundering beat was apparently the last straw Geffen was grasping at. $70 million had already been spent but they were still ‘fucked up’ – however the awful news was that Walter Yetnikoff refused to allow the song.

Geffen was enraged and went on a crusade to wreak havoc for Walter.

Now that I’ve listened to MJ again (here) it is clear that if Geffen had got this yet unreleased song, people would have flocked to see the movie for the soundtrack alone.

When the media printed the sanitized version of the story they claimed that it was Michael Jackson who asked Geffen to include the song into the movie, though in reality it was the opposite of course, and presented it as a small matter though it was actually a huge quarrel between Geffen and MJ’s associates.

The NY Magazine described the fight over ‘Come Together’ as taking place in spring 1990 which was exactly the time when the whole future of the Days of Thunder movie was at stake.

New York Magazine

November 5, 1990 

Last spring, Geffen says, Michael Jackson asked him to include an unreleased Jackson song – a cover version of John Lennon’s “Come Together” – on Geffen’s Records’ soundtrack for the Tom Cruise race-car movie, Days of Thunder. Yetnikoff refused to allow it… “I didn’t want him to have the thing,” says Yetnikoff.

It was a small matter, but Geffen’s friends say it enraged him all the same. If Geffen couldn’t get Jackson’s song, maybe he could get Jackson himself – lure him from CBS to Geffen Records. Or, at the very least, make a move to do so and wreak some havoc for Walter.

You will remember that the background for all those events was the fake Project M, that lasted at least four months (February-May 1990) during which Jeffrey Katzenberg and his camp were keeping Michael Jackson ‘happy’ and on a quick start in case a return favor was required of him.

When the quarrel over ‘Come Together’ took place in May and Project M went bust in early June, Michael Jackson was so shattered that on June 4th he was taken to hospital with chest pains that turned to be a heavy case of cartilage inflammation thought to be caused by over-exertion or stress.

After four days in hospital and weeks of recovering at home Geffen sent him flowers and on June 21st Michael thanked him by a letter saying that with Geffen’s ‘prayers and blessings as a shield’ he was quickly advancing towards recovery and promised to continue sharing the fruits of his labor ‘with loyal friends’ such as Geffen (more about it here).

“Dear David: The flowers you sent during my illness were so beautiful and greatly appreciated. With your prayers and blessings as my shield, I am quickly advancing towards complete recovery. I fully expect to resume work in the near future and continue sharing the fruits of my labor with loyal friends such as you. Thank you for standing by me. You’re wonderful! Love always, Michael Jackson” June 21, 1990

‘Loyal friends such as you’, ‘your prayers and blessing are my shield’, ‘thank you for standing by me’ – and after that our Producer thinks that Michael Jackson wasn’t trusting and naïve?

Though I am not sure you can really call it naivety – Michael simply believed in the good of all human beings and this is where his mistake was.

In any case the outline of the events described by these documents is much more realistic than the picture painted by the Producer. Let me remind you of what he said:

  • TriStar wanted Robin Williams and Spielberg’s approach, Michael had tentative not-very-strong interest from Disney in his. And it was the only reason they were humoring him. Film financing is hard even when you’re a heavyweight”

Film financing is indeed hard, especially when you humor someone for several months, but still can’t get from him his great music to save the film.


The people who read Julia Phillips’s book in 1991 and compare it with what we now know of Hollywood are really impressed – she was indeed a whistleblower turned into an outcast for describing Hollywood the way it really was.

April 21, 1991

In the 1970s Phillips ran with a fast, talented crowd; Martin ScorseseSteven SpielbergPaul Schrader are among “the guys at the beach” who hung out with her and dreamed of making the great American movie.

[Now] it is a lacerating indictment of Hollywood’s culture of status and greed. As she talks about the deals, remembers the meetings, describes the productions and quotes her friends, it is impossible to say if every fact or quotation is accurate, but the overall thrust is true. Hollywood is like this. People do say these stupid things, and have these worthless values, and lie like this, and double-cross one another, and keep exquisitely detailed psychic records of snubs and status.

She does not exaggerate. For every good guy she praises, every hero like Alan Ladd Jr. or David Brown, Schrader or Scorsese, there are a hundred creeps. This is not to say that Phillips was not often a creep herself, grabbing credit for other people’s genius just like the people she ridicules.  It is simply to say that it takes one to know one.

02 SEP 2018

The book is a rambling monster holding nothing back, with a neat turn in bitchiness. She goes after actors, directors, writers but particularly the moguls, whom she blames for the decline in the quality of Hollywood films during the 1980s.  The strength of the book is not her self-indulgence or what she thought of individuals, but burrowing under the studio politics and decision-making processes, such as Geffen patently refusing to hire a director who is smarter than he is; sorry, Neil Jordan.

It’s difficult to gauge how reliable she is because of the relentless score-settling, but it all sounds horribly plausible and it is difficult to work out the more unpleasant of the two, Julia or the town which nurtured her and she turned on: so much for the dream factory.

If it seemed hyperbolic when it was first published, we now know Hollywood is just as dysfunctional as Phillips claimed.  We are aware that a lot of those attracted to the world of movie-making are just as ghastly as she said they were, though given the history of Hollywood and earlier exposés, it should not have come as a surprise to find it full of selfish, venal, greedy sociopaths often possessing poor judgment.  

After this little overview of Hollywood portrayed by its insiders I hope you will agree that it is simply monstrous on the part of these people to present themselves as judges of human character and pass their moral verdict on those they hardly know.

Their judgment is poor, their opinion worthless, their views are shallow and twisted as they were formed in the atmosphere of lies, hypocrisy and misconceptions, amid back-slapping camaraderie over their joint indulgences, overwhelming fear and silence.

In comparison with this crowd Michael Jackson looks like an E.T. from a different planet. And same as with everyone who is not of this world, these creeps are unable to attribute to Michael Jackson anything else but their own cynical way of thinking, their vile habits and monstrous interpretations of another person’s deeds – and all of it simply because they don’t know anything else.

How dare these people climb on their high horses if half of them are deadbeat junkies and alcoholics and the other half are mean cynics, not to mention weirdoes like Don Simpson or Warren Betty who says hello by suggesting a threesome with a woman and her teenage daughter?

And why did the media keep a daily vigil on Michael Jackson instead of reporting the incessant vile practices of Hollywood personalities? Those who will say that the media merely overlooked it will be requested to take the wool off their eyes and face the reality – all of it was the deliberate window dressing which was especially mean as they chose a man whose little finger they were not worthy of.

And the very fact that they chose Michael Jackson for the role of a fall guy is the best proof that he was not one of them.  

The argument that Michael Jackson couldn’t be different ‘because it’s not possible to be so cheery and naive and survive, especially if he truly was as innocent and helpless as his fans claim’ does not hold water because firstly, Michael Jackson did not survive, while our Hollywood Producer did, and following his logic we are supposed to think that he is no better than the Hollywood crowd because it is impossible to be good and still survive in that environment.

It has always been my impression that those who are playing this nasty game against Michael Jackson attributed to him what they themselves are guilty of. And even take some kind of perverse pleasure in doing it so openly.

The powerful have their own jokes and play them big time.

But what previously was only an impression has now turned into a firm conviction that the things they themselves indulged in – drugs, plastic surgery, sexual abuse, voodoo curses, whatnot – were deliberately alleged about Michael Jackson to distract attention from the real perpetrators who were never touched.

And since I mentioned the voodoo curses – another of those mad rumors about MJ – here is the final piece from Julia Phillips who tells us the unsurprising news that ‘there is plenty of black magic in Hollywood’ and seems even surprised that her interviewer didn’t know about it.

She also adds, “I’m beginning to think it works, given who I know are the practitioners.”

Here is her 1992 interview where she talks about it at about 1:10 min, looking visibly shaken and nervous throughout the conversation.

Julia Phillips died in 2002 of breast cancer aged 57.

Made In The USA report: Julia Phillips (1992)

24 Comments leave one →
  1. May 27, 2020 4:25 pm

    I hear there is a new Netflix documentary series about the crimes of pedophile Jeffrey Epstein against young girls:

    The Story Behind the Netflix Docuseries Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich
    UPDATED: MAY 22, 2020 7:29 AM EDT | ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED: MAY 21, 2020 1:18 PM EDT
    Netflix’s latest true crime documentary, Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich, examines how a wealthy and well-connected financier got away with crimes of sexual abuse and sex trafficking for decades. But just as crucially, it provides a space for his survivors to share their own stories.

    The four-part series, based on James Patterson’s 2016 book Filthy Rich, features several interviews with survivors and traces a web of powerful people accused of enabling Epstein’s illegal conduct. (Patterson collaborated on producing the series, along with RadicalMedia).

    The series documents how accusations of sexual abuse followed Epstein for years before law enforcement took action. Although rumors and allegations swirled, it wasn’t until he was arrested in July 2019 on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges that his crimes became more widely known. The arrest was based on allegations that he had paid young girls, some of whom were underage, for sex and used them to recruit others dating back to 2002, according to a criminal indictment unsealed in Manhattan federal court last year.

    Prior to his arrest, Epstein had received increased scrutiny over a plea deal he struck in 2008 to avoid federal prosecution when he was accused of sexually abusing underage girls, after the Miami Herald published an investigative report into the deal in 2018. Under the terms of the plea deal, Epstein served just 13 months in prison and was permitted to leave custody to work in a private office for six days a week.

    Lisa Bryant, the director of Filthy Rich, tells TIME that her anger grew as she learned more details about the extent of Epstein’s abuse.

    “[He was] this rich guy who was charismatic and just got away with things,” she says. “We really wanted to lay out, step by step, his life and pattern of playing the system. And he did it very well until the very end.”

    Production on the documentary series had been underway for nearly nine months before Epstein’s arrest in July 2019. “Everything changed overnight,” Bryant says. “After he was arrested, everyone knew about it so we had to shift a little to covering breaking news. Things were happening so quickly.”

    Then, in August 2019, Epstein died in an apparent suicide while in a federal jail in Manhattan. For Bryant and the survivors she’d gotten to know over the process of making the series, Epstein’s sudden death was a blow. “I was mad. These women deserved to see him go to trial,” she says. “I don’t think they’ll ever get the closure that they truly deserve. He didn’t have to ever really answer for his crimes.”

    ‘It went from something real to something perverted’

    Filthy Rich is anchored by the survivors of Epstein’s abuse, now grown women living all over the world. Across their many stories, they recall being recruited or recruiting other girls to go to Epstein’s properties in Palm Beach and New York City or to his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands to have sex with Epstein, often under the guise that they were being hired to give him massages.

    I think that people should do some serious soul searching and ask themselves a question why the media and prosecution went after Michael Jackson, the innocent man, while real pedophiles were free to do whatever they liked.

    Will the public be able to understand it at least now?


  2. May 12, 2020 4:04 pm

    Those who haven’t seen the Frontline “Tabloid Truth” documentary here is a high definition copy of it posted by MJJ Archive on April 28, 2020:

    SEASON 1994: EPISODE 10 (FEBRUARY 15, 1994)
    On a quiet Sunday morning at home in the San Fernando Valley, a freelance reporter got a call from an expert in child sex crimes: Michael Jackson was under investigation. By the time the reporter’s story aired twenty-four hours later, the media feeding frenzy was underway. Within a matter of days of the first report, the Jackson story had jumped from hard, verifiable news to spectacle and entertainment. FRONTLINE correspondent Richard Ben Cramer goes behind the scenes of the television coverage of the Michael Jackson story to look at the people, organizations, and economic pressures that have led to the tabloidization of American television.

    This much clearer copy has also been added to the respective post about the documentary which also has a partial transcript of it:


  3. May 12, 2020 2:13 pm

    “Stay home stay safe” – Des
    “Hope, you are well!” – Maria

    Thank you dear, I am OK and I am in isolation in the country trying to minimize all contacts. I always liked working in the garden, but now see as a rare luxury others cannot unfortunately enjoy these days. It is surprising how people are learning to value the simplest things in life again – something Michael did and always tried to explain, but no one really listened.

    Stay healthy and safe too!

    One God many faces
    One family many races
    One truth many paths
    One heart many complexions
    One light many reflections
    One word many imperfections
    We are all one
    But many.

    Great words.


  4. May 12, 2020 1:26 pm

    “It’s funny how most of us are now walking on the streets, in shops and trains like Michael did sometimes in his days – with a face mask!”

    Susanne, it is indeed funny, especially for those who ridiculed him for the mask. Now it is their turn to look ‘weird’. I would love to see Diane Dimond and all those others in their masks too. Just imagine Tom Sneddon in a face mask – that would have been hilarous!

    And thank you for answering the comments while I was away. Some emails have brought me back from my hiatus. I thought that the coronavirus distracted Michael Jackson’s haters from their daily job of slandering him, but the emails say that his detractors are still at their job.
    Well, to a certain extent I am not surprised. This is indeed their JOB, most probably even a paid one, otherwise I cannot explain their persistence to tell lies at so crucial a moment.

    The present situation has made my hate for lies only stronger. I usually avoid the word and avoid having the feeling, but as regards lies I cannot help it, sorry. Lies are the root of all evil. You cannot even imagine how I long for the truth to take over and for everyone to see it – everywhere, in every aspect of our lives!


  5. May 6, 2020 3:14 pm

    Thank you for answering, Susannerb! Stay safe!


  6. Des permalink
    May 5, 2020 9:13 pm

    Thank you Susannerb,am glad your all okay. I have been wearing my masks for a while now and every time I get the opportunity I mention to people look at us all,people use to call Michael Jackson weird for wearing them who is weird now. I also saw some beautiful Michael Jackson masks for sale on the mjcast very creative,thank you again take of yourselves stay safe and believe this will pass too.


  7. susannerb permalink
    May 5, 2020 12:40 pm

    @mugvort: I’m sorry we are so quiet right now. I can tell you that Helena is quite okay, as far as it is possible in these corona days. You probably know yourself how the situation is in Russia now, so we all are worried and try to cope with the various lockdowns in our countries. I can tell you that Helena wrote me that she tries to come back to the blog when she has finished her gardening work for the spring season.
    Let’s all hope and pray that the virus will soon be under control in all our countries and that science will soon be able to provide us with a safe vaccine so that we all can relax and enjoy our activities again. Let’s keep the faith!
    PS: It’s funny how most of us are now walking on the streets, in shops and trains like Michael did sometimes in his days – with a face mask!


  8. April 27, 2020 4:30 am

    How are you, Helena? You haven’t written for so long, I’m getting worried. Hope, you are well!
    There is (was?) some problem with your web-site. I’ve tried to write 2 comments before (one – about a month ago, another – 2 weeks ago), but as soon as I pressed “send” they dissapeared.


  9. Des permalink
    April 15, 2020 7:37 am

    My dear Helena wishing you a happy Easter health love and happiness.Stay home stay safe smell your roses and again thank you for everything you do.
    One God many faces
    One family many races
    One truth many paths
    One heart many complexions
    One light many reflections
    One word many imperfections
    We are all one
    But many.


  10. April 10, 2020 3:08 am

    I am a victim of online grooming, I’m not sure if that differs to real life grooming, but no child will willingly participate in sexual activities. They’ll be pressured. The groomer will tell them it’s okay, and no-one will find out. Thankfully, we never met (the groomed and I). It’s kind of dumb that Jordie portrayed himself as so submissive, when before in the Dr. Gardner interview he (Jordan) could lay down the law to Michael. He said that when Michael put his tongue in Jordie’s mouth and said ‘Hey I didn’t like that’. But when Michael was ‘rubbing’ up against him he said nothing. And when they performed sexual activity, didn’t Jordie stop to say, ‘What are you doing?’ Doesn’t make any sense. Could you talk about the Onision case, where he abused teen girls? Thanks.


  11. March 31, 2020 2:48 am

    “For example, his struggle with vitiligo could be delved into, with clear pictures and candid footage included of him suffering from the disease. Don’t just state facts about the autopsy report–tell a story about when and how he found out about it, how he reacted, how he tried to hide it” – William King

    Absolutely! People should walk in his shoes to be able to understand his unwillingness to talk about his vitiligo, his shyness and even fear – with women in particular. It wasn’t the fear of women as such, but the fear that the sight of his body could avert them and probably encourage them to gossip about it and sell their stories to the media. So his choice of women had to be limited to a very close circle of those for whom he developed a trust, and didn’t predispose him to easy relations with women the way one would expect of a mega pop star.

    “I also already agree with the direction Taj is taking now.”

    If this is the direction Taj is taking this is the only direction possible.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. William King permalink
    March 31, 2020 2:08 am

    Just to be clear, when I say it should be emotionally appealing I mean in the way the story is presented; getting people to see him in a more full sense and showing him dealing with various things in life even outside the allegations. For example, his struggle with vitiligo could be delved into, with clear pictures and candid footage included of him suffering from the disease. Don’t just state facts about the autopsy report–tell a story about when and how he found out about it, how he reacted, how he tried to hide it, how he felt having to cope with it, when he met Arnold Klein and developed that relationship, and so on. This is how you can create that emotional appeal while sticking to facts.

    I also already agree with the direction Taj is taking now. I think his approach is probably the most effective (not just solely trying to debunk lies but show who Michael was as a whole–the truth). I’m not exactly criticizing Taj or anyone, just making a general observation which I think might be worth sharing and taking note of. It’s also something I notice that is different in his approach versus the one most of us have taken before. I now appreciate what Taj is trying to do even more. He’s on the right path.


  13. March 30, 2020 2:08 pm

    “our focus needs to be more on the narrative we’re putting forth, not just the hard, cold facts. helena I’d like your thoughts on my recent comment?” – William King

    My opinion is that hard facts are a must, but they work only when they are not cold and are emotionally colored. Facts are needed because simple crying in the camera and imploring people to believe that he was innocent is pathetic and will only make viewers laugh. And the opposite of it – just refuting lies one after another is boring, sounds technical, will leave no emotional response and will be easily forgotten in contrast to colorful lies that last forever even if they struck you just once.

    Our memory is made that way – we remember only those things that evoke our strong emotional response, negative and positive alike. And if emotions are not involved – forget about it. It won’t work or will work only for serious researchers who are determined to get to the truth no matter what, but they make a tiny minority and are not the target audience anyway.

    All others need to be shattered to remember and understand. Or they should be engrossed in the story to get them involved.

    But the problem here is that truth is usually plain, simple and nothing extraordinary. It is lies that really impress as they are colorful and ugly, and the more perverse they are, the more a normal person’s reaction is “This is so bad that it could not be invented”.

    I’m no specialist, but simple logic takes me to Hollywood and the opportunities it suggests – their thrillers, mystery stories, action films, comedies, dramas, adventure films, and all the rest of it.

    If I could give Taj Jackson a piece of advice, I would advise him not to restrict himself to the usual laws of documentary films, but be creative and FREE. Free to do what he thinks best for this particular story or that episode. Shock here, laugh there and make the viewer cry together with him at some point if necessary. Be truthful to a point when his sincerity alone shatters the viewer. Not open his cards at once, but take the viewer on an adventure and make him discover the truth himself.

    And it doesn’t matter if one part of the series is a drama, another a comedy, one more a thriller and still one more a science-fiction story of the kind “what would be the outcome if this had happened a different way?” I would just tell Taj to do whatever he likes and the way he likes it. Be free and have fun with it.

    If anything this alone will be a shock. And a shock is still better than nothing and all those other films which are true but boring. Let Taj enjoy himself while making the film and convey the feeling that those who know of MJ’s innocence are above these dirty games and look at them slightly ironically (well, at least this is how I feel about it).

    In a way his series could be an epitome of what Michael Jackson was like – childlike, often funny and carefree, but mostly terrorized by horrible personalities and lots of menace, often unseen but extremely tangible, and danger, danger and danger at his every step. And if a viewer occasionally feels the terror of it, it is also only for the better.

    And it is not necessary for Taj to cover everything – if his film is only a teaser and intrigues viewers with more to come, it will also be only for the better. Actually it may indeed take years to tell Michael Jackson’s true story.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. William King permalink
    March 28, 2020 4:23 pm

    @helena I’d like your thoughts on my recent comment? I might post it elsewhere as well under Taj’s youtube video(s). I want to know what others think.


  15. William King permalink
    March 28, 2020 4:19 pm

    I’ve been recently thinking about this whole issue with Leaving Neverland and the fight to vindicate MJ and I now realize what many others have already concluded. So far most of the videos and documentaries we’ve put out have been focused almost exclusively on facts, evidence and sound logical arguments to support his innocence (putting forth the strongest cumulative evidentiary case), and exposing the lies and contradictions of his recent accusers and the co-conspiring segments of the mainstream media. However, as most of us know, people are more easily persuaded by emotional arguments than facts or evidence. This, I think, is where the disconnect occurs with those who haven’t already done the research. For them, the facts aren’t as “real” or legitimate unless they are accompanied by a compelling emotional argument. (Note: this is probably why the news media puts so much effort into shaping narratives and trying to evoke emotional reactions from the public.) Now that I see this, I can understand why Taj doesn’t want to take the standard approach and simply dissect the allegations and falsehoods. Instead, humanizing MJ and getting people to understand and empathize with his suffering, as he’s stated, should be the main goal. This doesn’t mean the facts won’t be as central, it just means they will be part and parcel of the overall attempt to put forth a powerfully compelling emotional argument; one which forces people to confront the very real and ugly consequences of unchallenged and accepted false accusations. We need to hammer home just how critical the value of justice is. To sum it up: our focus needs to be more on the narrative we’re putting forth, not just the hard, cold facts. I think if we do this effectively we WILL have won!


  16. nan permalink
    March 20, 2020 4:45 pm

    I was watching Taj jackson do a live 2 hour YouTube and he mentioned , also, that MJ was the scapegoat, for others in Hollywood, and that they would invite, him in, basically to pick his brain, take his ideas, words to that effect, so you are definitely correct about MJ relationship with some in the entertainment business, dangling carrots
    He also said that the hip hop artists are the ones defending him, now, b/cuz hollywood types take advice from agents etc, and the music business is a different animal.
    It was a long video,interspersed , with other questions/topics re but if you go on Taj twitter acct , you can link to Or maybe this will link it


  17. March 17, 2020 10:48 am

    Sometimes the truth is simply floating in the air and our job is to stretch our hand and get it.
    Today I’ve read about the coronavirus and some countries silencing the real number of victims for their vile needs masquerading as good, and suddenly came across a quote from Albert Camus’s novel the PLAGUE who, besides raising an extremely topical issue for today, also expressed the way he understood good and evil.

    He said that ‘evil in the world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.’

    Albert Camus won the Nobel prize in literature in 1957. The prize motivation was:

    “for his important literary production, which with clear-sighted earnestness illuminates the problems of the human conscience in our times.”

    Albert Camus
    I myself haven’t read the PLAGUE but even its synopsis struck me as incredibly relevant. The novel describes two camps in a small town hit by a plague where one is the religious camp believing that the plague was sent by god to kill the sinners and fighting god’s will is entirely pointless, and the other camp volunteers to fight and joins sanitation groups.

    Albert Camus defined the most incorrigible vice as an ignorance that fancies itself it knows everything (something I also said recently, unaware that I was repeating the great writer’s words):

    “The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding. On the whole, men are more good than bad; that, however, isn’t the real point. But they are more or less ignorant, and it is this that we call vice or virtue; the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance that fancies it knows everything and therefore claims for itself the right to kill. The soul of the murderer is blind; and there can be no true goodness nor true love without the utmost clear-sightedness.

    The above seems to be a direct answer to our reader luv4hutch who claims that his friend is ‘good’ and ‘his only flaw is that he is unable to be swayed to another point of view, no matter the evidence’, same as to the family of starflower who yell at her despite her doing research and presenting holes in their views on Michael Jackson.

    These people consider themselves good, though ‘there can be no true goodness nor true love without the utmost clear-sightedness.’

    But if ignorance is so big a vice, from which everything else stems – even murder, how much bigger is the vice of confusing people with deliberate lies and making them ignorant?

    LIES are the major evil in the world.

    Albert Camus


  18. starflower08 permalink
    March 16, 2020 4:16 pm

    Thanks for replying. I remember being younger (12, I believe), MJ being on the radio, then my aunt switching it and saying: ‘MJ was a nonce (British slang for paedophile)! Touched young boys!’ I believed it, before I done my other research. I remember, quite sheepishly, asking my sister if it’s wrong to slander a dead man and she caught on it was Michael Jackson. She yelled at me, calling me a paedophile idoliser, and I froze up, even though I’d done research and presented holes, she said, ‘ALWAYS BELIEVE THE VICTIM.’ The only victim here was Michael. This blog is my go-to, thank you Helena.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. March 16, 2020 3:12 pm

    “Did Jordan or Gavin truly admit to no wrongdoing? Just wondering, thx!”

    I’ve heard it about Jordan but haven’t heard it about Gavin, and will believe it only when I see the respective documents or interviews.

    Probably they did, but even if they go on TV to speak about it tomorrow, the effect will be the same as with Corey Feldman, Macauley Culkin, Brett Barnes and many others who testify that Michael’s behavior towards them was totally appropriate – the detractors will still find a way to doubt the truth.

    The problem is not with Jackson, the problem is with those who decided it for themselves once and for all. The more evidence you provide to them, the more stubborn they are in sticking to their beliefs. For Michael’s vilifiers it has become a sort of a religion.

    P.S. I’ve just changed the post to clarify that Robson first made his allegations about MJ in May 2012 to his therapist within a certain ‘insight-oriented therapy’. The allegations became public a year later, in May 2013. In between Robson wrote a book and tried to shop it.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. starflower08 permalink
    March 16, 2020 2:25 pm

    Did Jordan or Gavin truly admit to no wrongdoing? Just wondering, thx!


  21. March 16, 2020 7:51 am

    “Don Simpson may have lived a very hedonistic lifestyle and was certainly not decent, but he wasn’t evil, and didn’t seek to hurt people.” luv4hutch

    Don Simpson reminds me of the movie “Fifty shades of gray” which I once tried to watch but couldn’t make it to the end. Now that I know of Don Simpson I think his character was used as a prototype for that business magnate who was capable of only sadomasochistic sex.

    Is that character evil? To me there is no question about it, even if this business magnate made great movies or possibly spent millions on charity.

    What I can understand is that he grew into a monster due to certain circumstances in his own childhood that made him that way, so I am not going to judge him – it is not my job but that of the Heavens. But what I know for sure is that I will certainly not be interested in this person’s views and opinions. To me it is the same as listening to the views of serial murderers or cannibals on the value of human lives.

    And by the way, portraying sadists like Simpson just as ‘outsized’ as he was called in the media, is also evil because it confuses people and deprives them of very simple moral values -like this and that is simply not done. A moral taboo.

    This is not to say that I didn’t like his and Jerry Bruckheimer’s movies.’Beverly Hills Cop’ comedy is my favorite, probably mostly because of Eddy Murphy and the great cast, and music too, but it would also be untrue to say that learning about Don Simpson’s ways didn’t add a certain new shade to the way I see this movie now.

    And finally, my point was not to judge Hollywood. They make great films many of which I like very much. My point was to show the obvious double standards in treating Michael Jackson and characters like Don Simpson by the media and Hollywood crowd.

    There must be an explanation for it. And the only explanation I see is that those who ran Hollywood didn’t like Michael – he was an alien to them – and they used all their power to destroy him, turn him into a laughing stock and simultaneously use him as a shield protecting them from the public enquiring about their own ways.

    And it won’t hurt to recall that Victor Gutierrez often referred to Hollywood as the driving force for his activities against Jackson.


  22. March 16, 2020 7:13 am

    “he simply is not going to read this post, so even though you address him at the end, it falls on deaf ears.” – luv4hutch

    I know and it wasn’t my intention.

    “He has a strong moral compass and values that he lives up to quite faithfully, he is warm and amiable in conversation, and he genuinely works to make the world a better place.”

    Oh, this requires a long discussion. What I see around me and what exasperates me most is that evil is often done by warm and nice people who side with it not realizing what they do. Evil is not that obvious as everyone tends to think – it always masquerades as good and as the best intentions.
    And it is extremely frustrating to see really good people unwittingly taking the wrong path because they are so overwhelmed by confusing information that they refuse to look any further and sort of shut themselves in the small world of what they once learned and want to believe. It is just more comfortable to them this way – it spares them the time and effort.

    That is why what I really value is not whether people are nice or not, but whether they want to know the truth and are ready to work for it. Like all others they also make mistakes and could also be misinformed and misguided and could have totally wrong opinions, but if they have inquisitive minds and search for the truth they are young and very much alive even at 90, and most importantly, they are the drivers of good in the society. While those self-satisfied with the little they know are the worst kind, especially if they put all their energy into imposing their misconceptions on all others.


  23. luv4hutch permalink
    March 15, 2020 9:05 pm

    There’s also this fact. While one can definitely say most people in Hollywood aren’t what it takes to be considered decent and good, they certainly exist there, as people like Tom Hanks, Hugh Jackman, Chris Pratt and so on can easily attest. And most of the people that aren’t decent and good there aren’t truly evil, especially if they don’t maliciously hurt people.

    Don Simpson may have lived a very hedonistic lifestyle and was certainly not decent, but he wasn’t evil, and didn’t seek to hurt people. He just wanted to make great popcorn flicks. There’s no crime in that. Also, while Simpson lived that lifestyle, his surviving partner, Jerry Bruckheimer, most certainly didn’t and is an actual decent person.

    Mrs. Phillips’ point of Hollywood, in terms of creativity, in decline in the ’80s is also fairly overblown and ludicrous. Just because she didn’t like those movies doesn’t mean they automatically ruined things. Lots of movies that she denigrated were really good,actually. Doesn’t detract from her prescience in calling out the creeps, of course.


  24. luv4hutch permalink
    March 15, 2020 8:53 pm

    While I certainly don’t agree with his points, being a cynic doesn’t automatically make my friend a bad person. He has a strong moral compass and values that he lives up to quite faithfully (and he has shown me there definitely is no double life of his), he is warm and amiable in conversation, and he genuinely works to make the world a better place. He just has a blind spot and a flaw, and is unable to be swayed to another point of view, no matter the evidence.

    Also, he simply is not going to read this post, so even though you address him at the end, it falls on deaf ears.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: