What I find astonishing is that even if a critic believes the uncorroborated accounts of the two accusers, Leaving Neverland is STILL a bad documentary, and in fact is NOT a documentary at all.
Definition:
noun.
Using pictures or interviews with people involved in real events to provide a factual report on a particular subject.
It is bloated.
It is deliberately one-sided.
It doesn't provide any genuine evidence to support the claims made and deliberately omits counter evidence.
It deliberately edits audio to appear incriminating.
It includes video from a press conference on a completely different case in an attempt to mislead the viewer into thinking MJ's lawyer was somehow threatening 'victims'.
The documentary uses multiple pieces of footage without the appropriate permissions.
The documentary does not include any rebuttal from the Michael Jackson Estate, and none was sought, when they are the ONLY people who are able to provide Michael Jackson's response to these allegations - allegations made long after his death.
The film includes allegations that people were abused when they themselves have always insisted they weren't, and includes photos of one of them when they have requested that they be removed from the film.
Aside from all of those things, if we are to assume that Dan Reed was unaware of the train station issue and all the accusers' lies and contradictions when this was released then the research done was inadequate, either because those doing it were incompetent or because they were only seeking to support their own agenda.
The ONLY thing this has going for it is the impact it had through the excessive, fawning coverage in the news and I hold out hope that the nominations are due to that impact, more than because of the quality of the product, and that because of this the film will not win a single award.
If it wins any 'documentary film' award I will be absolutely furious because it will be an award that simply CANNOT be justified in the context of true documentary film making.
