Johan Croneman: When the director becomes the prosecutor, we must ask critical questions about the film's method

There are, of course, something deeply offensive in Dan Reed's fyratimmarsdokumentär ”Leaving Neverland” (SVT Play), about Michael Jackson's alleged pedophilia – but also something highly disturbing in the very essence:

”It was generally known.”

the reception of the film has been very positive, both at home and abroad, ”strong” and ”compelling”, and even if it's not said straight out: a self-evident truth. The credibility and likelihood – rushed suddenly up in not less than 100%.

I'm sitting with some friends, and get to the question of what I ”think”.

together all the rumors, by several decades, settlements, trial in 2005, the now current movie, so points probably a lot on that Michael Jackson may have förgripit against young boys. Yes. It can be done.

But it is interesting what any of us at all think? Michael Jackson-the world denies, of course, everything. They do not believe. They say that everything is a lie, a rash of greed, everything is just a matter of money (the film's huvudvittnen have also sued Jackson's estate). See a short mobilintervju with pop star Aaron Carter (spent time with Jackson as a young man) on the skvallerkanalen TMZ. Aaron Carter says that Wade Robson (one of the film's huvudvittnen) lying like a horse trots. His outburst seems to (also) have the right credible.

the Director behind ”Leaving Neverland”, Dan Reed, devote four hours to be very deftly, sometimes elaborate, sometimes manipulative, to build their two witnesses. Namely, it is what he has, Dan Reed, the two strong stories, and he does not lift a little finger to try and question them, look for gaps, contradictions. Other witnesses do not interest him, witnesses say other things. He early decided.

These two witnesses, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, he builds then deliberately and very carefully and slowly up to become two very strong witnesses – and, above all, their own karaktärsvittnen.

well to sit and råljuga so there in four hours? Now they are also two – and with the same history and the same course of events.

Towards the end, I think, absolutely nothing. I am no longer prepared to answer the question at all.

Dan Reed devote enormous time to the structure, dramaturgy and montage, the music is underlaid with the emotional, caring and skill, he imagines that all of us million of viewers are the jury, he is the prosecutor, he has two hugely compelling witnesses – now he must build their credibility from the ground up.

Dan Reed tells their life story, about families, girlfriends, dreams, childhood, early life, it should strengthen the credibility, especially the ”ordinariness” of their lives. And when he comes into the actual abuse and sexförbrytelserna, Michael Jackson's crimes (he has, according to Reed paedophile's all scientifically based behavior) so may themselves sakligheten and the thoroughness and choice of words absolutely crucial. The details of the sex makes the truth even stronger.

”Unilateral”, it says in one English and one american review, and in any Swedish, but the criticism is mostly a kind of lamentation on the tempo, it is slow.

. The time, the slowness, the many (many!) monotonous repetitive repetitions IS the method, and the method is once the truth – and how convincing you have to be?!

Dan Reed's method is convincing. Wade Robson and James Safechuck narrative becomes very compelling. Do you doubt as you can possibly stand as the sole defender of paedophilia.

the Media, popular culture, social media sits soon on the whole justice. Judgment is entered via Twitter.

Read more: Jackson documentary shows the importance of witnesses

Read more: Strong evidence in the film of Michael Jackson