Some thoughts on movie sequels

Cover of Richard III

There are many hasty remarks made about sequels both among the hordes of regular movie goers and the more professional echelons of critics. The hasty remark voiced by the average movie viewer is that vast majority of sequels are worse than the original. The hasty remark by critics, specifically those who write for mainstream movie magazines, is that decent sequels have only really started appearing in the 21st century. I consider both views to be gross generalizations at best.

The critics' generalization is disproved with 1935's The Bride of Frankenstein. This is often considered a vast improvement on James Whale's atmospheric original Frankenstein. Whale had the opportunity to really cut loose on Bride using black humour and a subtle play of hammy campiness not really appreciated until many decades later. The Godfather Part II won more awards and is also considered by many to be a better sequel than the original. And who can forget The Empire Strikes Back. Far from being cynical, the film took chances with a darker tone for a mainstream family movie way back 1980 and is perhaps the most incomplete part of the original trilogy. Yet critics and fans alike look upon it with extreme fondness, so much so that it is arguable that it is more responsible for the negativity the third film received off fans than the first film. Likewise the third instalment of the Star Wars prequels has received more acclaim than its two predecessors.

Still before the 21st century superhero revival and Batman Returns may have seen a decline in box office revenue from its original, but looking back it is perhaps a much better film. Into the 21st century and we see Christopher Nolan scoring with perhaps one of most all round successful sequels to date, 2008's The Dark Knight. This film would also be the sequel that would give the superhero genre their first Oscar for an acting role with Heath Ledger's Joker. Also in the superhero genre we find Spider-Man 2, which is an improvement, in many ways, over the original film.

Most professional drama has seen sequels. Yet we have come to see the movie sequel as little more than an attempt to cash-in on a successful or semi-successful original film. "The Fall of a Nation" was Thomas Dixon Jnr's attempt to cash-in on the first full length feature film "The Birth of a Nation", which was the feature film. Apparently Dixon didn't receive a penny for the first film, so decided to direct his own sequel the following year. It is now considered a lost film, but film critics look to it, in hindsight, as the blueprint for the first attempt to milk an original film with a follow on feature. However, if we look at the history of the novel, the play and even the epic poem we see that there was often a need to continue a story, which was justified in the form of a sequel. A similar argument could be made for remakes, but I will save that for another article.

Few professors of English literature would look favourably upon the view that Shakespeare's Henry VI parts II and III, and Richard III were cynical soulless cash-ins on Henry VI part I. Furthermore, and it is worth mentioning considering we are in a time of prequels and especially considering the bashing the Star Wars prequels have met, it worth considering that the prequels to VI, Richard II, Henry IV part I and II and Henry V are often viewed as superior plays to the Henry VI trilogy and Richard III. The popular view is that William Shakespeare was older when he wrote the first parts of history cycle and therefore more mature, intellectual and philosophical in his writing, whereas the latter part of the cycle were written with more melodrama and although still brilliant aimed for a broader audience in order to pay the bills.

One might argue the point that the aforementioned plays were the work of the same person whereas many movie sequels are the work of hacks employed by cynical production companies. This might be a valid point if we consider the second Godfather, Spider-Man 2, the Lord of the Rings' two sequels, X-Men 2, Evil Dead 2, Romero's first two Dead sequels, The Bride of Frankenstein and Superman II*. The Empire Strikes Back may have had a different director, but the writing and creative control were all in the hands of the same man who directed the first film. The argument might be taken further if we think of what happened to the franchise after the man behind the original left. The third X-Men film wasn't a bad superhero film to be fair, but stank by contrast to the first two. The Universal horror sequels that followed The Bride of Frankenstein are charming and fun, but they become exactly what sequels are often considered to be: blatant cash-ins.

However, this can all be considered confirmation bias or selective arguing. After all Sam Raimi made Spider-Man 3 as he did the first two, and most agree it is not a patch on the rest of the franchise. Romero's long time coming fourth and fifth Dead sequels fizzled rather than exploded. We have already George Lucas's work on Star Wars, but it is worth mentioning here to illustrate a point. After Empire, Return of the Jedi prompted the beginning of a phenomenon in fandom known as "Lucas bashing". This was far from assuaged when the auteur took the full helm again with the most eagerly awaited prequels in cinema history. Each successive prequel was hated a little less, but for all their huge financial success, there are many casual cinema goers and militant Star Wars fans alike that agree they were either badly executed or never should have been made in the first place. The big problem many had with the Star Wars prequels was the retconning. In the minds of many there was an established mythology and by adding to it the great auteur ruined the perceptions of many. What, of course, is often forgotten is that Lucas had messed around with Star Wars since the announcement of The Empire Strikes Back when he added "Episode IV: A New Hope" to the opening crawl of the re-released version of the original Star Wars. Even the original trilogy's plots are full of changes that makes Lucas's supposed grand plan dubious at best.

So what makes a good sequel? Essentially I think viewers are impressed by a feel that the sequel progresses naturally from the original. Going back to the plays of Shakespeare and his contemporaries - not to mention the epic works of antiquity - we can see that audiences were drawn to the ominous warnings, prophesies and dramatic irony that had been set up in the preceding work. If done correctly there is a particularly delicious soliloquy delivered by Richard Duke of Gloucester in Henry VI Part III as, towards the play's final acts, he suddenly reveals his Machiavellian intentions to seize the crown in the sequel, Richard III. Subsequently Richard III, which is mostly viewed, read and studied as a self-contained work, has a significant portion of its speeches and conversations centred on actions that have occurred in previous plays. In fact, the whole play is about the conclusion of the original sin committed in Richard II. In this respect, Richard III is perhaps an ideal representation of the sequel.

Bryan Singer's X-Men and X2 work as if they are two parts of the same film. The same thing happens in Superman and Superman II, which were filmed at the same time. In fact, the sequel is often better in these instances because of the events that set it up in the original. Similarly Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2 is an excellent example of a much-loved middle sequel, a la The Empire Strikes Back, because it not only fulfils events set up by the first film, but then takes other matters and leaves them with tantalizing cliffhangers for the third part. Unfortunately this ball is well and truly dropped in X-Men: The Last Stand and even fumbled with in the overblown Spider-Man 3. In the former case a different director could be blamed, in the latter it could be argued that Raimi was under considerable pressure that compromised his position. The same could be said by the much belated "The Godfather Part III". Back in 1974 Francis Ford Coppola was pretty much given full creative control with his sequel to The Godfather Part II, even to the extent that he was able to change convention in having the first sequel to have name "Part II" added**. However, according to Coppola this was not the case with 1990's The Godfather Part III, a film he would have liked to have called "The Death of Michael Corleone". However, as we have already discussed, giving an auteur complete control of a franchise does not always guarantee critical success.

Nevertheless, The Lord of the Rings stands as a gleaming example of what happens when sequels are filmed and fully conceived as part of one whole continuous project by the same creative team. In this instance each film generally received more praise, acclaim and awards than its predecessor. There becomes less need for retconning and new characters appear more fluidly. Much like the first two Superman films, the second two parts of the Back to the Future and Matrix trilogy demonstrated the benefits of back-to-back filming. Like Lord of the Rings, the third instalment is generally considered by casual and professional critics alike to be better than the second, which is very rare in film land. *** One might speculate that viewers are more forgiving with a third instalment if it, at least, keeps a solid and fluid continuity with its predecessor even if it is somewhat disloyal to the original.

Then there are those sequels that break all the rules and still do a good job. "What Becomes of the Broken Hearted" differs considerably from all the sequels, I have mentioned, by not being a genre movie. Although it will always be overshadowed by the viscerally intensive and dramatically impressive first film, "Once Were Warriors", it is still an excellent sequel. What is most impressive is that the first film left no obvious doors open, which judging by the many examples I have given is pretty much a requisite for a sequel to have a chance. However, WBBH does have one advantage over other sequels; it is based on an original novel. It earns other good sequel marks by having most of the original cast. Where it works and shouldn't is by killing off a character from the first film at the beginning and creating a totally new angle to base the rest of the film on. This is normally a sign of desperation in the world of sequels, but with WBBH it results in creating the epilogue to the first film (and novel) that it seems we needed after all.

Likewise, when it comes to the world of bad movies or should I say "films that are so bad they are good" we find that only by being totally audacious with the rules can a film sometimes stand out for the right reasons. Such is the case with "Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives". The films were already illogical, far-fetched and, quite frankly, ridiculous, but never before had the main protagonist since Part II been officially considered supernatural. The sixth part completely threw caution to the wind by bringing the villain back in Universal horror style, with a bolt of lightening sent through his rotting corpse and so was born zombie Jason. By setting up the ludicrous the rest of the picture didn't miss a beat. Like the third A Nightmare on Elm Street, it used the humour wisely without turning the whole film into a complete parody. It was nowhere in the same league as the Nightmares, but it began to demonstrate signs of slasher self-awareness long before Wes Craven used it to good effect in "Scream" a decade later.

For me, sequels vary much as any original film does. You have good ones and you have bad ones. Some are complete insults to the original (American Psycho 2), others just don't measure up to the original but our essentially decent films in their own right (Meet the Fockers), some are respectable continuations (Psycho II), some equal the original (Blade II) and there are a fair few that surpass the original (Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me). I definitely feel they work best if they are carefully set-up and plotted plausibly in the first film and then follow a close continuation throughout the franchise, not discounting the events in any part of the chain. In this respect it is a momentous task and perhaps far more credit should be given to a production company who can deliver a critically and commercially well received sequel beyond the first one.

*Superman II was originally directed by the same man who directed the first film, Richard Donner. Donner filmed an estimated 75%, but was taken off the film due to - depending on who you believe - artistic differences with the studios or going over budget or both. Nevertheless, I have included in the list as it was shot at the same time as the original and with essentially the same creative team, at least until Richard Lester took over as director.

**The first commercial film to feature 2 or II in the title was 1957's "Quatermass 2", the sequel to 1955's "The Quatermass Xperiment". It was also based on a TV series entitled "Quatermass II". In the US the titles for both the original and the sequel were not used, which is perhaps why many American movie historians overlook this when discussing the history of the sequel. Movie geeks are quick to point out that "Jaws 2" is the first film to actually mention the whole title of the original movie followed by a number. Looking at the way many films have difficulty getting the numbering system right - think First Blood's sequels, Rambo First Blood Part II, Rambo III and Rambo - it is little surprising we find difficulties with continuity in their storylines.

***For sequel haters, the third instalment is regularly considered - to quote the third sequel of the Blackadder series - "The crowning turd in the waterpipe".

Don't forget to check out Jamie Clubb's main blog www.jamieclubb.blogspot.com

The Icon Series: Burke and Hare: Ghouls on Halloween

Image via Wikipedia

I love scary stories and I have a large interest in criminal history. Therefore, the grisly and tragic story of the multiple murderers Burke and Hare is the perfect case for me. It fits in well with Halloween. After all it was at the Hallow-Fair that the two infamous pair met up and at a Halloween party the following year that they committed the last of their terrible murders. In a time when bodysnatching gripped the Edinburgh public with panic, these two “opportunistic low-lives”[i] saw an expedient opportunity to use their lodgings as a slaughterhouse for the poor and vagrant to be delivered to the dissecting slab of the celebrated anatomical surgeon and lecturer Dr Robert Knox.

Up the Close and Doon the Stair,
'But an' Ben wi' Burke an' Hare,
Burke's the Butcher, Hare's the Thief,
Knox the Man, that buys the Beef.

This was the ghoulish rhyme sung by the children of Edinburgh after William Burke and William Hare were arrested. Newspaper sensationalism made sure the story would enjoy good coverage that would climax with the packed public execution of Burke. His body would later be dissected by Robert Knox’s rival, Alexander Monro, where the lecture room would be filled to capacity by morbid onlookers and police would have to be called to remove others who clamoured to get into the room. This later incident reminds of the overwhelming public response to BBC’s decision to allow Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, to appear on the panel of “Question Time”! Ironically for Burke, Monro had also been his and Hare’s first choice when they first embarked on the corpse selling business.

The Napoleonic Wars and the Industrial Revolution created an increased demand for doctors and surgeons to help treat injured soldiers and workers. In order to better understand the body and to meet these demands surgeons needed to practice and then they needed to teach other surgeons. For this they needed human cadavers. Archaic laws, completely out of touch with the enlightened drive for medical and surgical knowledge, forbid the use of all carcasses other than those taken from the gallows. Out of this necessity was born the trade of stealing corpses from graves and gangs were formed all over the United Kingdom to take on this grim work. It became pretty obvious to everyone where the supply of corpses for competing lecturers were coming from, but so regular was the trade that the authorities did little to stem it.

History always gives us the benefit of hindsight, and looking back it was unsurprising that eventually the worst of the worst would figure out a less difficult and sinister way to obtain corpses. It wasn’t long before families became fearful that their long dead loved ones would be snatched and started spending extra money on security measures making it harder for the gangs. Surely, it was only a matter of time before someone would figure out that there would be an easier and perhaps even less risky way to obtain corpses, if moral and common decency weren’t too much of problem for you.

By all accounts William Burke and William Hare were not particularly intelligent human beings. Immigrant workers from Ulster, they had travelled to Edinburgh to work as navvies on the Union canal. After construction completed Hare would eventually move into the lodging house of fellow Irish Catholic, Margaret “Lucky” Laird, a recent widow, and become her common law husband. Later Margaret would end up drinking with William Burke and his new female partner, Nelly (aka Helen) McDougal (aka Dougal). Burke had left his wife and two children in Ireland for good and after working on the canal joined up with Nelly. Together they repaired shoes and sold them to the poor. According to Burke the fateful meeting occurred in 1827. The couple would move in at Tanners Close and it was there that the scheme was hatched or happened upon.

According to Burke’s confession, an old soldier called Donald died of natural causes in Hare’s lodgings. Apparently the old man owed Hare £4 rent and the heartless landlord felt that he deserved it by fair means or foul. The corpse was sold to Robert Knox’s establishment. It was easy money. Next time they didn’t wait for a tenant to pass on under natural circumstances. Old Joseph, a very sick lodger whose symptoms were beginning to scare other lodgers, threatened to affect Hare’s livelihood. So he and Burke once again decided to turn a potential financial disadvantage into substantial advantage. Very quickly they adopted the modus operandi that would serve them throughout their career. Old Joseph was intoxicated to the point of virtual unconsciousness then one of the nefarious two pinned him whilst the other pressed a pillow over his face. This is not as efficient or easy method as feature films and stories tell us. It is unlikely that the one doing the pinning just acted as an immobilizer. He probably compressed the chest aiding the suffocation. Later this was probably changed to the more familiar method that would be known as “Burking” – one hand over the nose, the other sealing the mouth and bodyweight to compress the chest again. These murders were committed on drunk and weak individuals in a manner that would leave no marks.

Burke and Hare officially killed 16 people in the course of nine months. The order of victims has been disputed, not just between crime historians but between Burke and, well, Burke. The murderer made two confessions, one to the sheriff and a later, more detailed one, to the Evening Courant newspaper. The two killers’ victims included several truly evocative cases, which ensured that both men and their wives received hatred that bordered on hysteria. Mary Patterson was a particularly attractive prostitute who was known to some of the students who watched her being publically dissected in the lecture theatre. “Daft” Jamie Wilson was a young mentally subnormal 18 year old beggar, well-liked and well-known locally, who apparently put up a very spirited defence before he met his untimely end. There was a 12 year old boy who was murdered alongside his mother.[ii] Finally there was Mary Docherty, a poor old beggar, whose Irish background provided Burke with the perfect story to lure her back to Hare’s lodging house. He claimed that they must be related and invited her over for some porridge and a dram of whiskey. However, her murder did not go unnoticed. A family of lodgers, the Grays, suspected it and saw evidence of the body. When Nelly pleaded and attempted to bribe them, the crime was confirmed and they reported it to the police. The game was up, but the show had only just begun!

Hare, in a move that would cast him forever as the more evil of the two, would betray his accomplice and accept immunity from prosecution in return for disclosing their crimes. Up to this point the evidence was only circumstantial against Burke and Hare, so they needed one member of the gang to testify. Hare even arranged it for his wife to get off. Subsequently Burke’s “wife” also escaped without a conviction. All three fled the country and a myth eventually circulated that made it into nearly every criminal re-telling of the story that retribution was eventually meted on Hare. According to the story he was thrown into a lime pit, after which he would walk the streets of London as a blind beggar. This is all highly unlikely and there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim. Nevertheless, as is the nature of myths, if repeated enough it becomes the “truth” and makes for a satisfactory conclusion to “The Legend of Burke and Hare”. In reality Hare faded into obscurity not long after being released from prison and no credible evidence has surfaced as to what happened to him, his wife or Burke’s wife.

Burke blamed as much as possible on Hare in his confessions. This helped immortalize Hare as the mastermind in most versions of the story, but it didn’t stop the hatred vented against him when he was convicted on Christmas Day. After his public dissection his body remained on show for the public to view. His corpse was then skinned. Apparently pieces of his skin were sold and legend has it that even Charles Dickens used a strip as a bookmark. The Police Museum in Edinburgh has a matchbox made of it on display. Meanwhile his skeleton is on view at the Edinburgh Medical Museum.

Burke and Hare first came to my attention through a feature film that scared the socks off me. Looking back it works more as a dark tragic Faustian tale than the horror film it was intended to be, but nevertheless to a prepubescent boy “The Doctor and the Devils” was a film that made an impression. It was an end of innocence of sorts for me. Beryl Reid, who I had only previously known as a children’s storyteller, plays the Docherty character (here changed to Mrs Flynn) and her inglorious and ignoble death scene followed with having her finger cut off for a ring not worth more than “two bob”[iii] was enough to bring home to me the heartless horror that makes the essence of this story so chilling.

Interestingly “The Doctor and the Devils” changes the names of all the protagonists. Burke becomes Robert Fallon (played by Jonathan Price), Hare is Timothy Broon (played by Stephen Rea) and Knox is changed to Dr Thomas Rock (played by Timothy Dalton). This had been done before for the first feature film based on the lives of Burke and Hare, “The Greed of William Hart”. Robert Louis Stevenson did the same with his novella, “The Bodysnatcher”, which was also made into a 1945 feature film. Although it is perhaps fair to say that Stevenson only used the case as inspiration rather than as the basis for his story. The Doctor and the Devils also has respectable literary origins. The original was a film script written by the famous Welsh poet, Dylan Thomas and presented several themes that were already mainstays of the story. I will come to these later.

Not long after seeing the Doctor and the Devils I began reading a series of booklets written for young teenagers in my school’s library. The stories concerned a group of teenagers who went back in time and found out about 19th century murderers both real and fictional. At the end of each instalment the booklet gave details on the literary or actual history of the particular spotlighted villain. The third book was concerned with Burke and Hare, and for the first time I read a version of the true story. The story, of course, seemed uncannily similar to the film that had scared me previously. The penny began to drop and I began to discover that the facts were even grimmer than the fiction I had seen.

I was 19 years old before I came across the grisly two again. There are several somewhat sensationalist “True Crime” magazines available in the UK. They are marketed and produced like tabloids for the crime historian. An issue with Burke and Hare on the front cover caught my attention. This was at a time when most of knowledge on criminal history stemmed from such books as the pulp non-fiction “World’s Greatest” series, so the mixture of myths and facts without any thorough research didn’t bother me. This account included the fictitious story of Burke breaking the back of the 12 your old boy over his knee.

1960’s “The Flesh and the Fiends” is the best Burke and Hare film ever made. Released the same year as another classic horror thriller, Psycho, The Flesh and the Fiends was old-style horror at its zenith before audiences demanded more gore. I saw it late one night on TV and, once again, I was intrigued to find out more about Burke and Hare. Donald Pleasance stars as the evil Hare, becoming the exact bogeyman caricature most of us imagined him to be. He goads Burke and masterminds the whole murderous scheme, which is pretty much in line with the real Burke’s account of the events. It makes for very eerie viewing and yet is played as a straight drama and pulls it off in good style.

Years later I took my soon-to-be wife and her children in Edinburgh for a long weekend’s holiday. We loved the city so much that we visited it again within a year – and this time on Halloween. Edinburgh is a fascinating city. Fortified for a long time, it became isolated from the rest of Scotland and is often considered to be the most English part of the country. Being a fortified city and densely populated over the centuries houses were built literally on top of one another and there are even some buildings located underground. The result is a maze of incredibly high buildings and dead end closes. It is very rich in history and contains both a palace and a complete castle. This is the city of the tragic Mary Queen of Scots.

I have been accused and I don’t wholly deny it, that I took my family on a Burke and Hare pilgrimage. There were plenty of other reasons why I wanted to go, but it gave me an excuse to really explore the story of Burke and Hare. I bought the films I knew and I found another one I had had no previous knowledge of, The Greed of William Hart. This very low budget horror starring ham legend, Tod Slaughter as the William Hare character, changed to William Hart, seems more at home in the 1930s than 1948 in terms of style. I also picked up the best book written on the subject, “Burke and Hare: The Year of the Ghouls”. Brian Bailey’s book cut the myths away, questioned certain facts about the case and used almost exclusively primary source material. It was an accessible and yet serious historical book.

Whilst in Edinburgh we went on several guided tours of varying degrees of quality. The best for Halloween was undoubtedly the Witchery Tours written and led by a caricature of the ghost of a supposed hanged highwayman called Adam Lyle. We enjoyed the tour so much that we booked it again on our second visit. Of course, Burke and Hare were mentioned along with the stories of the plague, medieval punishments and ghosts.

Recently I got the opportunity to see 1972’s “[The Horrors of] Burke and Hare”, which is the least popular of the films. It is a somewhat misguided fare that tries to add a sex comedy sub-plot into the story. It also has an appalling soundtrack, which makes it sound like an Ealing Studios comedy.

The Burke and Hare films reproduce both facts and myths that have been passed down since the crimes were committed. They have also often repeated several other themes, which have led some critics to claim that each film was a re-make. For example, the tragic prostitute Mary Patterson’s connection with the medical students is turned into a romantic sub-plot used in The Flesh and the Fiends, Burke and Hare and The Doctor and the Devils. This then happens again in 1972’s Burke and Hare, and finally in The Doctor and the Devils. Each film has a different take on the relationship with different results for the fictional smitten student and the Patterson character. In The Flesh and the Fiends this character is played by the great Billie Whitelaw and through her relationship with her ill-fated student lover, we see the terrible divide between the different classes of the time. These contrasts are heightened in both the subsequent films, contrasting the wealth and privilege of the surgeons and their associates with the poor that Burke and Hare live among.

Dylan Thomas blatantly used the theme of the over-reaching hero in The Doctor and the Devils. Dr Rock is easily the most sympathetic version of the Dr Knox character we have seen. Both and he and Robert Fallon, the Burke character, are juxtaposed as driven men. Thomas implies Macbeth in his original script with both characters. Rock over-reaches in his pursuit of knowledge and Fallon in his quest for money. Both, however, become possessed by their own demons and ultimately both end up destroyed in their own way: Fallon on the gallows and Rock with his career in tatters. Cushing’s Knox, however, is a little less sympathetic but has a better ending. There is little to sympathize in the Knox of 1972’s Burke and Hare. He is every bit the callous man of privilege Edinburgh’s people saw him as at the time of the trial of the two murderers. From the accounts I have read I don’t feel this is a fair depiction whereas in contrast Cushing and Dalton’s portrayals of coma across as a bit too kind.

The crimes of Burke and Hare probably influenced copycat killers. In London the term “Burking” had already entered into criminal language. The London Burkers, Bishop and Head, were a gang who apparently modelled their crimes on Burke and Hare. Then there was the Cook family, which featured a female Burker who was testified against by her young son. In the end, Burke and Hare’s crimes led to the creation of the Anatomy Act in 1832, which allowed surgeons to have access to unclaimed corpses for dissection. Coincidentally procedures were already in place as a select committee had already been set up in 1828 the year the majority of Burke and Hare’s crimes took place. Before the discovery of these murders and the further discovery of the murderers in London public opinion was not in favour of the Act. Sentiment, of course, dramatically changed in a very short time.

When we talk of Halloween we think of the supernatural. Each of the main supernatural monsters we have conjured up over the centuries settles into certain human stereotypes. Since Dr William Polidori’s novella, “The Vampyre”, the vampire has become associated with a decadent aristocracy. The self-made monsters, werewolves and Mr Hydes, perhaps fit better in with the middle classes. The ghoul, on the other hand, since its importation from the Middle East is a monster of the common people. Ghouls eat dead corpses from graves and can be found in the masses. Just as the vampire has become a term used for people who sap the energy of others, as parasites, the ghoul is a term used to describe those who are associated with the macabre. Burke and Hare are the perfect examples of the human ghouls. Burke and Hare are unlikely icons for even the most morbid of aspirants. They were a pair of dirty, cowardly, parasitical alcoholics who exploited people of their own class in the most amoral way imaginable. Yet they are perfect icons of real-life horror and also representatives of the symptoms their time.

For further research I recommend Brian Bailey’s “Burke and Hare: The Year of the Ghouls”.


[i] From the sales blurb of Brian Bailey’s “Burke and Hare: The Year of the Ghouls”

[ii] Myths circulated that Burke had killed this boy by breaking his back over his knee. There is no evidence to support this and it would have been a very stupidly violent act for even an intoxicated Burke to carry out.

[iii] Line from the film “The Doctor and the Devils”

If you enjoyed this article please show appreciation by registering and voting for it on these websites. It won't cost you a penny and you can earn money as a member. Thank you!

Helium
Dooyoo


Don't forget to check out Jamie Clubb's main blog www.jamieclubb.blogspot.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• John Landis Preps New Horror Film! (cinematical.com)
• Murder for Medicine (rveblade.xanga.com)
• David Tennant Joins Simon Pegg In Burke and Hare (cinemablend.com)

Unacceptable Conduct? - Pseudohistory in the making

Image via Wikipedia

Pseudohisoty is the distortion of established facts through the complete creation of disinformation or the application of confirmation bias. Often both occur together or someone starts off with a falehood, then someone else buys into it; invests in the story in some shape or form (often emotionally) and then uses confirmation bias to prove its authenticity. Recently I have seen an example of pseudohistory unfold and it happened in the martial arts community. A videotaped incident of a man being severely beaten in a US karate dojo that apparently occurred in 1984 has been revived on YouTube. Local police said that they had seen the beaten man - a local vagrant - days after the unfortunate episode apparently happened. He said he didn't want to press charges. Nevertheless, it gained some notoriaty in the early 1990s. However, this is nothing like what has followed in 2009.

Apparently the instructor who owned the dojo where the beating occurred, plus set up and encouraged it, is the man responsible for posting the footage on YouTube. This was met with a horrified response. Since then fictional information has been added, including connecting the incident to a "cold case", where a dead man was found in a dumpster around that time. Showing a shocking desire not to check facts, the incident was then reported on a US TV news programme, albeit with the question as to whether or not it was a hoax . When I received an email on Facebook asking to join a club that wanted to waste time and resources to investigate this mythical case, I felt I needed to say something. So, I joined a thread I remember seeing on the Martial Edge forum and posted my views.

Keen to show this example of pseudohistory in the making to an audience that would better understand it objectively I passed on details of my small amount of activity on the forum, to the "Undercover Sceptic" blog. Here is their post:

http://undercoversceptic.blogspot.com/2009/10/unnaceptable-conduct.html

I have seen the power of the media from both sides of the camera. I grew up in showbusiness and my parents' company supplies to the media industry. It is incredible what imagery and emotional language can do to people. Things I have learnt since I embraced critical thinking are that no one is invulnerable to propaganda and gossip, and it is all a question of finding someone's level of creduality. I am still shocked how so many people in the circus world, my first culture, can be taken in by charlatans. It seems mad to me that a culture who counts some of the greatest tricksters of all in their heritage - Phineas T Barnum for example - can buy into all sorts of pseudoscience, old wives tales and superstition. Likewise, the subculture of martial arts and its offshoot, that of modern self protection methods, both of which I am heavily entrenched produce people who are just as gullible. We are in a time where "defence of the self" is being preached as a method of ultimate self defence. I am in line with this way of thinking and feel that we need to be aware on all fronts.

Undercover Sceptic's points that martial artists should be "switched on" not only to the hard dangers in life, but also to the manipulations of others is very apt. In my Martial Arts Scepticism series of articles for "Jissen!" magazine, I pointed out that scepticism is a philosophy that would benefit the martial arts world. A martial artist aspires to a high level of discipline and self control. This is usually meant by the fastidious way they stick to their physical training, rituals and self control often just means don't go around abusing your skills on others. However, I argue that this self control needs to be honed at an even deeper level. A good defence against becoming susceptible to the emotional impact of gossip, the tabloid media and other stimulants that set off the sympathetic nervous system is to become more disciplined with critical thinking. We should always question intelligently and have a rational set of tools to help us spot red flags in a story. When shown any sort of imagery we should be sceptical and ask some simple questions, doing our best to remove our emotions from the questioning. It is not difficult and before long you will have a built-in intuitive sense of whether or not something is entirely true.

The Washington Post's more balanced review of the "cold case"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/30/AR2009083002251.html

Some more hysterical responses:
http://www.thoughts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25191
http://www.justice4kungfuguy.com/


Don't forget to check out Jamie Clubb's main blog www.jamieclubb.blogspot.com

The decline of history

Those of you have read a lot of my rants, ramblings and articles in recent times will notice a certain bent towards combatting pseudohistory. History, unlike science, doesn't have a straightforward testable system to establish "truth". However, it does have a fairly sound methods for researching, investigating and establishing facts. The historian acknowledges famously touted expressions such as the one found in the novel "Roots" that "The winners write history" and Napoleon's famous line that "History is a set of lies agreed upon", but he understands by the value of such methods as Occam's Razor, use of empirical evidence and the objective study of various primary source material that he can arrive closer to the truth than the speculator, the fantasist, the propaganda merchant, the conspiracist, the hyperdiffusionist, the extreme postmodernist and other examples of the pseudohistorian. Such opposition to this propagation of false history led me to read such excellent books as "In Defence of History", "Counterknowledge", "Real Enemies", "Reclaiming History" and "Denying History", which are brilliant guides for anyone who feels a little overwhelmed by the attitude that all accounts of the past are equal.

Nevertheless, as much at it vexes me to see another Dan Brown novel being promoted left, right and centre I need to acknowledge that there is perhaps a far larger problem happening. A good friend of mine once advised me to avoid "them versus us". It was a sound observation. I come from a minority culture - circus people - and a minority subculture - martial artists - and therefore I am no stranger to the feelings of having a siege-like mentality. Rather than just opposing pseudohistorians I need to understand what is happening in our society. Some of the above books provide excellent insights into the psychology of populist movements influencing the way we look at the past. However, perhaps there is something else behind the paranoia evoked by the Freedom of Information Act or the academia of postmodernism. Perhaps there it is simply a case, as Dominic Sandbrook muses in his fascinating article below, that as less and less history is being taught in schools in favour of vocational work, the demand outside continues to grow.

The big fight for those who believe in history is to keep history!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/6190569/Once-upon-a-time-there-was-a-subject-called-history-.-.-..html

Don't forget to check out Jamie Clubb's main blog www.jamieclubb.blogspot.com

There are more things in our beautiful garden...

Image via Wikipedia

Because of the supernatural imagery and religious conventions used in Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet” the quote “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” is often touted by those who want to believe in the supernatural. However, I think the quote can serve in a similar vein to the Douglas Adams’ one “Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?” The current scientific discussions of a gigantic bird, Haast’s eagle, before now considered to have been only a scavenger but now described as a virtual lion from the skies. Even more incredible is that this bird was only made extinct 500 years ago. This brilliantly illustrates the point I am trying to make:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/maori-legend-of-maneating-bird-is-true-1786867.html

Don’t get me wrong, I love fantasy. I love fantasy for its wonderful useful allegories and powerful metaphors. However, both of these draw their strength from our love of fantasy for the sake of fantasy. There is nothing wrong with escapism. I don’t think there is anything especially wrong with sitting around the proverbial campfire to scare each other with thoughts of magic and impossible happenings, so long as the light of day in our minds returns us to rationality. I often think this is then spoiled by those who decide to persist with a pursuit of the irrational.

The other day I bought a lovely looking hard-backed short encyclopaedia of fantasy aimed at a young audience. It looked like one of the many books that I loved to read in our primary school library, full of beautiful illustrations and details of mythological creatures. Even the introduction looked promising. The writer gave a nice description of her interpretation of fantasy, which pretty much came down to the wonderful power of imagination. Sadly the book was then tarnished with logical fallacies and badly researched data on certain subjects in a weak attempt to convince the reader that “something might be out there”. For example, she explained reports of monstrously high waves used to be thought of as seafaring legends until satellite photography in the 20^th century revealed their actual existence. Because of this discovery, she argues, it is not incredible to think that many of the sea monsters described by sailors exist. This is not a logical argument, it is and you will have to forgive the unfortunately appropriate pun, a Red Herring argument. Marco Polo came back with fantastical descriptions of the creatures he saw on his journeys; having never seen such animals before he immediately associated them with the creatures of myth such as the unicorn.

I am not quite sure about heaven, but there are certainly far more things on earth than we can imagine and often they are far more incredible. The sea is a good place to look considering the majority of its species have not been properly discovered. Like Douglas Adams there are also plenty of examples of fantasy and science fiction writers who make a healthy distinction between the realm of the imagination and the real world. Another common myth is to think those who are pragmatic, scientific or embrace rationalism lack imagination. Somehow the logical mind erases our ability to love the impossible. This is utter nonsense. Beatrix Potter, I believe, is a wonderful example of a person who could create wondrous and enchanting escapism and yet, at the same time, keep her head to break social conventions and help found a highly successful prize-winning farming dynasty. Beatrix Potter may have had her head in the clouds a lot of the time, but her pragmatic success demonstrates just how firmly our feet were planted on the ground.

Don't forget to check out Jamie Clubb's main blog www.jamieclubb.blogspot.com

Follow the Black Swan

Image via Wikipedia

First of all let me apologize to the gentle reader who was misled by my title. This is not going to be an enlightening piece of literature, where the black swan is a metaphorical representation of some philosophical idea I am trying to convey to you. The black swan does have a symbolic meaning to me that I might divulge at a later time, but it has little to do with this post. This post is about one thing and one thing only: money!

Start any credible writing course or read any decent book about writing as a profession and you are more than likely to be reminded of the immortal words of Dr Samuel Johnson, author of the first English dictionary, "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money". Most courses that are serious about getting you paid for your written work will encourage you to write letters for newspapers that pay, enter competitions for cash prizes - you will note that the vast majority of small writing competitions award cash prizes for a good reason - and indeed chase anything that means a monetary return. There is little place for pride in the early life of a writer trying to turn profeessional. In fact, the story of the struggling writer who prostitutes himself in anyway to make his talent pay is a virtual modern proverb these days. Check out the very funny Ed Reardon's Week for a great caricature of the overeducated writer desperate for work or, indeed, the Ricky Gervais's series, Extras for examples of an artist tortured by the continued loss of his credibility. And yet ask many non-writers their opinion on writing for a living and they will think it is a simple case of writing a book and sending it off the lucky publisher keen to get their hands on your gold. You then receive nice fat advance payments for every subsequent book, as you laze back in your expensive surroundings just waiting for the inspiration to grab you before writing your next bestseller. J.K. Rowling is cited as the supreme example of this and it is perhaps why many a struggling writer see daggers at this phenomenally successful writer. The truth for most, however, is a very different story.

When I was at school I remember a special room being set up where students, in their free time, could investigate career opportunities. You would enter your career of choice and then be given a list of the qualifications that best suited this job and the places in further and higher education that offered them. Then it would tell you what the general job prospects were. I remember going into the room with the same writing myth in my head I have previously described. The qualifications came up, English and History. I was overjoyed. My two favourite subjects! Then job prospects followed: very poor.

As the years have past I have got work in print. I even sold my first two not very good short stories quite easily, but this did far from open the floodgates of opportunity for me. I wrote for martial arts publications, using the vehicle of my twin passion to get some leverage up the professional ladder of opportunity. Unfortunately the ladder was sort of propped against the wrong wall, as the industry rarely pays hard cash for any work. It is a business based on the fact that a highly competitive world of clubs and retail businesses are falling over themselves to get publicized, meaning that some people virtually pay to get their work in print! I do know at least one person who got paid to write for a magazine, but from his account it was a severely unbalanced Faustian deal. Luckily I was published with Martial Arts Illustrated who although didn't pay me hard cash gave me free advertising space. So, I worked out a way to promote seminars off the back of articles I wrote on good martial artists.

Eventually I did succeed in getting a book into print and significantly it wasn't a martial arts book. However, no serious businessman would have been impressed with the niche market returns I received versus time and effort put into researching and writing this book. Mind you, this is the general nature of the writing business. The general path most professional writers take is qualify as a journalist and then to start writing their books in their spare time. This is not the route for all of us, much less those of us who weren't qualified to become journalists when we left school, however, the principle is a very sound one. Get paid for perfecting your craft in order to support the projects you love. Of course, journalism is an art unto itself and many journalists only write books as sideline and incidental projects. Their real love is their actual job. If you are a writer like me, however, you want to write books for a living. You want to write about your intererests and passions and receive a serious income for it. I am on my way and I have found some useful new tools at my and your disposal.

Writing has always been an accessible art to most people. That's why you get the J.K. taunts. Most people could write a book. Most people can also make money from it and some recognition. This blog is proof of the latter point. The internet has proven to be an incredible tool for today's generation of writers. It certainly has some big dangers varying from being dragged into listless or empty self indulgent writing, where your work is never going to generate any indirect let alone direct monetary returns, to the new problems with copyrighting http://web.me.com/penandspindle/heathervallance/The_Goblin_Market/Entries/2009/7 /31_Why_My_Copyright.html However, if you can steer your good ship, Discipline with strong awareness light on well across the internet then there is plenty that can be used to your advantage.

According to Don Tapscott's Grown Up Digital the era of the critic may be at an end. Few consumers trust the words of the distanced academic "expert" over someone they can relate to. The internet provides a collaborative community, a global one at that, which forms groups and trades information. Savvy internet companies realize this. They understand that Tapscott's Net Generation like to read reviews from people like themselves before they decide to buy a product. They also understand that this community will reward and recommend good reviews. Many sites, such as Amazon, have done this. I am actually a member of Amazon Vine, a special group that receives any early releases they list whenever I want free of charge in order to review them. This is hardly payment for my services, but it was quite nice to receive that recognition for a bunch of reviews I wrote years ago as an exercise to see how my work reviewing non-martial arts items might be received by the general public.

However, what prompted me to write what has become a rather lengthy ramble is a price comparison website called Dooyoo. This is where I appear as the BlackSwan featured in my title, writing reviews and actually getting paid to do it. How do I find the time? Those who know me will understand that time is not a plentiful commodity at hand. I try to restrict myself to writing stuff that is directly related to my own work - be it teaching martial arts/self defence or promoting my book. However, like most writers I am also constantly feeding off inspiration. This mainly comes in the form of books and entertainment. I love to discuss these things and there are plenty of people who enjoy reading my opinions and recommendations. Therefore, I thought why not use the time I would normally use to reply to an email to make some money?

Dooyoo was recommended to me through the famed "money saving expert" Martin Lewis. Here's the page I read: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/protect/make-money-surveys#review I am not interested in wasting my time on paid surveys. That's not what I like doing. The point is I like writing about works that either inspired me and also ones that didn't. If you are a reading this you are more than likely to be a person who enjoys writing and enjoys sharing their views on different media. This a great exercise to get your views out there and to see if they people find them useful. Better that than to write a big explanation on Facebook, Myspace, a forum or the like whether or not you thought the latest episode of Big Brother was any good.

When I first registered with the site I was expecting - rather pompously - to see a huge slew of badly written reviews and plagerized work. Although there is a lot of dross on the site, which is only to be expected, I was astounded to see a large number of good writers, many like me who have their own professional website and blogs. The community was very much the embodiment of what Tapscott described in his book with members policing and rewarding one another. If you do decide to join up, here are a few pointers I have learnt early on:

1. Obviously don't plagerize. Any new review is immediately registered and the community are onto it like white on rice. You will get a rating - Very Useful, Useful, Somewhat Useful or Not Useful - pretty quickly. There are a lot of serious users on this site, and a good number probably relying on it for a decent secondary income. However, there is nothing wrong with recycling an old review you may have written on your blog or another website that encourages customer feedback. My advice would be to preface the review with a small disclaimer that the review has been previously posted elsewhere - if it is on your blog then that's more advertising!

2. Make sure your reviews are for products only listed by Dooyoo. Remember it serves as a price comparison website, so many of the products are from other retailers. There is a function that allows you to only see products in the Dooyoo catalogue. You won't get points for reviews written for any other products. It might add to your profile, but the money is way too small and time is far too precious to bother with that sort of thing. Also, if I know many of you like I know myself you will get snared into producing more and more work without any instant rewards.

3. There are two types of review, an express review and a premium review. The premium review is the one that pays the money 50p per review. These immediately get advertized once you have written them. You have to get £50 before you can request a cheque. Express reviews are any reviews under 150 words. They don't get advertized and I guess are a way for to save an incomplete reviwe online, a review you can later add to in order to make the 150 word count. You can edit any of your online reviews at any time. You get points for good ratings on your reviews by other members, points that help get you to your money mark, therefore you are given an incentive to produce both quality and quantity.

4. Join me. Let's get our Circle of Friends going. That way we can build up plenty of points and our work better recognized, which means more money! Also don't forget to give me ratings when on get on there. Follow the BlackSwan! http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/member/BlackSwan/



Don't forget to check out Jamie Clubb's main blog www.jamieclubb.blogspot.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• The author's big mistake (boston.com)
• What's wrong with being a hack? | David Barnett (guardian.co.uk)
• An Old Writing Technique I Use (slyvisions.com)
• Privacy's vanishing; how screwed are we? (petewarden.typepad.com)

Icon Series: Reflection on Michael Jackson Part 2: Fall, Death & Rise of an Icon

Image via Wikipedia

Fall of the Mighty

My generation’s cynicism did not come overnight. First there was Mike Tyson’s conviction for rape. Then there would be the deaths of Brandon Lee and Kurt Cobain. These were our heroes and, of course, their deaths would be surrounded by mystery and supposed conspiracy as such untimely deaths to famous people are destined to be.

The weirdness of “Wacko Jacko” was taken to an irredeemably sinister level. It wasn’t long after Jackson had apparently set the record straight in his first “open” interview with Oprah Winfrey that the first child molestation charges were made. The interview had seemed like a pleasant epilogue to my following of Michael Jackson’s works. Okay, his songs seemed a little childish and superficial at the time when I was getting into apparent “music with meaning”, but at least I could smile and say they guy was just a misunderstood eccentric like many pioneers in history. I remember discussing the interview with my fellow school sixth formers and the consensus was that Jackson was a very sympathetic figure, a victim of the media and his own tough upbringing in showbusiness. Then Jordy Chandler child molestation accusations arrived! And it was like the God of Cynicism that presided over the ‘90s was saying “Not so fast Mr Jackson! You are not going to get away that easily!”

To make matters worse, Michael Jackson agreed on an out of court settlement to let the matter drop. In the eyes of many this was an admission of guilt. This is an understandable public reaction from many people who have never really experienced the full pressure of the media on their backs or the thought of a painful trial to handle. An out of court settlement might seem like “hush money” to some, but to those who have faced both the media and the legal system might have a little empathy for an individual who just saw an easy and quick way out. I know plenty of examples of people who have inadvisably settled for cautions, fines and out of court settlements for crimes – non-sexual I hasten to add – they haven’t committed in order to curtail legal proceedings. I have also seen people settle for virtually anything, guilty or not, to quieten down media interest. It is very easy to sit back in your armchair and be judgmental over situations you barely have third or fourth knowledge or experience of.

Of course, the Jordy Chandler case wouldn’t be the last time such accusations were to be made and the settlement arguably opened the door for future accusations, if we are to believe many Jackson’s supporters. The following decade Jackson would be charged by the state of California on “seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent, in order to commit that felony”.

I may have moved on from the music of Michael Jackson at the time of the first accusations, but I always wanted to believe he was innocent. I acknowledge my influences and teachers with the respect they deserve and I was never embarrassed with being a Michael Jackson fan. And yet I didn’t know the guy or really anyone who was close to him. Why should I care whether he committed the crimes or not? The music and performance can be divorced from the man. Can’t it?

In-between the first and second set of allegations we watched and listened as celebrity paedophiles were shot down one by one. Gary Glitter was convicted more than once for increasingly worse crimes against minors and the campaign against him in the tabloid press continues to this day. I can happily say that I was never a Gary Glitter fan. He worked within my culture, the circus, for a very brief period alongside Gerry Cottle, who mentions him in his autobiography, “Confessions of a Showman”, but that is the only tenuous connection I can draw. Glitter’s music seemed arrogant and nonsensical to me during the time I discovered pop music, and by the time I retrospectively got into punk, glam rock was the anathema of my interests. However, to see him irredeemably fall was a shock to many.

Like Michael Jackson, Glitter, despite his three drink driving convictions in the 1980s, was a character that had become a family favourite. Then there was Jonathan King, once again I was no fan, but as with Glitter he just seemed to be a safe part of the institution. Now, according to the conclusions drawn from his guilty conviction by much of the tabloid press, he was revealed to be a prowling paedophile, enticing young boys into his limousine with promises of fortune in the music industry. Others, like The Who’s Pete Townsend, received a caution and a subsequent statutory five year inclusion on the Violent and Sex Offender Register. Townsend had been no saint during his guitar smashing days with The Who, but he had settled into a comfortable part of the establishment as he hit middle age and was an active campaigner for children’s charities. His conviction came about after he accessed a website that promoted child pornography. No evidence was found to secure a proper conviction and Townsend’s reasonable yet naïve defence was that he was researching material for a now abandoned book against child pornography. He had written an anti-child pornography article prior to the allegations.

Townsend’s career hasn’t really been tarnished. King is still a very strong self-promoter who has continued to produce a huge amount of work and keeps a positive face, but still gets little sympathy from the mainstream press. Glitter’s career seemed pretty much in tatters once he was found guilty for downloading child pornography. This original conviction was not nearly as severe as King’s, but he had some vital extra ingredients which were always going to work against him. Firstly despite the great diversity of King’s career, he was not quite as recognizable a figure as Glitter was and though comical to look at, he was not as eccentric. Secondly, Glitter was a has-been in the public eye and therefore completely safe to demolish. Mike Tyson had been found guilty of rape, but he had an army of defenders and fight fans that supported him throughout his prison term, upon his release and through his fights right up until his disastrous final bouts. This was all in spite of Tyson’s long criminal record and the fact he was accused and successfully sued on at least one occasion for sexual misconduct. Glitter did not have that kind of support or perhaps the British press were less tolerant. They hounded him wherever he went it seemed and eventually he was caught and convicted for several sexual crimes against underage girls in Vietnam. Glitter claimed to being entrapped and set up by the press, which is believable, but nevertheless hardly mitigated his crimes.

With these incidents all in mind (and the promise of more to come) it all seemed inevitable that Michael Jackson was going to be the biggest one of all to fall. This was it, the darker side of the American dream. After the album “HiStory”, Jackson’s career seemed to nose dive in the eyes of the general public. However, as pointed out by his younger sister, Janet, his final album, “Invincible”, was actually a financial success. It topped the billboard chart upon its release in the US and in 12 other countries. Nevertheless, the media mood of 2001 was not all welcoming for Michael Jackson. Aside from his previous allegations, he seemed to only appear in the press as part of some sort of weirdness or un-rock and roll-type controversy or other. The plastic surgery/skin disease problems also didn’t help his physical appearance and just further helped to propagate his general oddness. The sad thing about age is that you can all too easily become a parody of your former self.

It seemed like history was about to repeat itself. Martin Bashir’s documentary/interview served as a far less compassionate and more provocative sequel to Oprah Winfrey’s one that occurred 10 years previously. Winfrey had come across like a concerned parent who carefully asked questions like why do you grab your crotch on stage? Bashir, who had made his media breakthrough with his revealing interview with Princess Diana, seemed to be trying to get a rise out of Jackson. He certainly revealed the singer to be an eccentric – we already knew this – but he seemed to be trying to find this weirdness in everything he did. For example, I remember feeling sympathetic for Jackson when he demonstrated his love for climbing trees. Bashir just came across as a rather pompous stick-in-the-mud when he told Jackson that it wasn’t normal for a man in his 40s to climb trees, as if it were some sort of immature perversity.

Of course, the money shot for Bashir came with the issue of the children that stayed at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch. Most people had been okay with the general eccentricity he had displayed so far, but it became distinctly uncomfortable when the singer started admitting to allowing children to share his bed. Interestingly it was Jackson’s “man-child” innocence and lost childhood angle that protected him in the eyes of some. Others, however, were less believing. In one breath Jackson seemed to be harking back to a more innocent time when he said that there was no greater expression of platonic love than when you shared your bed with someone. In a time when the media has taught us sexualize everything, it is worth taking a step back and considering an age when non-sexual partners did share beds. However, this did not seem to exactly gel with Jackson then clearly asserting that he did not allow (or no longer allowed) children to share his bed.

Like Sister Aloysius in the play “Doubt: A Parable”, many felt that those who didn’t see him as a paedophile were trying to believe in whatever made them feel comfortable again. There may be a deal of truth in this. However, like the good sister these same cynics probably saw other corroborating evidence of Jackson’s guilt in his numerous eccentricities. It doesn’t stand up as a rational argument – more a “poisoning the well” or even a “slippery slope” logical fallacy – but in the minds of many, confirmed weirdness plus allegations of outright wrongness equals guilty. This, after all, is the nature of a witch-hunt.

Not having the facts and not being a close follower of everything that had been happening in the life of Michael Jackson, I didn’t side with the cynics or the all-forgiving acolytes. I just hoped that justice would be done and I hoped that no sexual offences had actually occurred. I didn’t want Michael Jackson to be a paedophile, but if evidence proved this fact without doubt, then this was something I would have to accept without mitigation. Aphrodite Jones’s book “The Michael Jackson Conspiracy” puts forward the idea that those who accused Jackson had agendas of their own. He argues using detailed descriptions of the court proceedings including apparent endless contradictions of prosecuting witness testimony and eye-rolling responses to the revelation of alleged “lies” put forward by the ’93 accusers. The title of the book is enough to make my own eyes roll, but it seems like a fairly strong case in principle. Showbusiness is certainly full of parasites, and celebrities are easy targets once you are inside the proverbial “circle of trust”, but equally there are plenty who abuse their own positions of influence.

Jackson’s huge debts and the immature way he threw money around on the Martin Bashir documentary seemed to back up this image of a child-like personality with little “street savvy” who could easily be taken advantage of. His various religious conversions first to being a Jehovah’s Witness, along with his mother, and then to Islam seemed to speak of a type of inner uncertainty. Apparently his bodyguards were from the Nation of Islam, a far more extreme and diverse version of mainstream Sunni or Shia Islam, but his funeral was Christian. And yet his professional career speaks of an independent man who broke away from his family and gradually took control of all his own projects. I would argue he was far more than “Qunicy Jones’s best instrument” as one British comic glibly quipped.

Death of an Icon

Like David Carradine who died the same year in fairly self-explanatory if rather sordid circumstances, Michael Jackson’s sudden unexpected death at 50 just before he intended to launch his final tour was pounced on almost immediately by the conspiracy theorists. These vary from the concerns of the family about suspicious circumstances connecting his doctor to outrageous Elvis-type claims about him faking his death. I am not going to go into the details, but just say that this was all tragically predictable. There are still documentaries and books to this day on “mystery” surrounding the deaths of James Dean, Bruce Lee, Marylin Monroe, Princess Diana, Elvis Presley and just about anyone who was very famous and didn’t live into old age.

It wasn’t long before Jackson’s estate state negotiating deals on documentaries that covered the singer’s final days. I predict plenty of nonsense thrown in with “exclusive footage and interviews” that will help muddy waters into the public’s perception of the inquest into his death. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the first one that seems to have surfaces, simply titled “Michael Jackson's Last Days: What Really Happened”. The documentary was presented by Michael Jackson fan and journalist, Jacques Peretti.

The documentary’s best interviewee was the advice of a true expert who provided the most plausible scenario for Jackson’s death given the evidence that has been provided. Dr Drew Pinsky is an expert in addictive medicines and has a lot of experience in dealing with celebrity drug addicts. Pinsky believes that Jackson, who had self-medicated with powerful painkillers since the horrendous injuries he sustained in a Pepsi commercial in 1984, killed himself accidentally. The only suspicious drug found in Jackson’s system was Diprivan, which Jackson might have used “off-label” as a “downer” to treat his insomnia. Pinsky gave Sid Vicious’s death as a case study comparison, although he dismissed the unsubstantiated claims that Jackson was also using illegal drugs like heroin. There would be no point, as this drug was not as effective as the prescribed ones Jackson was using. Pinsky’s interviews are interesting in that they give an insider look at the use of drugs by performers. For full details please listen to Pinsky’s interviews taken from the TV programme “Michael Jackson’s Last Days: What Really Happened”.

A Final Reflection

The whole media storm surrounding the death of Michael Jackson has created two opposing camps of thought. We saw a similar division occur during the sex allegations. There are those who are turning him into some sort of saint and those who bemoan the way the hype over him is taking over all the news.

Unfortunately despite Jackson’s incredibly impressive army of diehard fans, their legion have been temporarily joined by hypocrites who probably couldn’t recall a Michael Jackson beyond Thriller before his death. Suddenly it is cool to like Michael Jackson again, but somehow it leaves a very sour aftertaste.

However, it seems just as attractive to join the second camp. It has become just as fashionable to talk about the disproportionate amount of interest generated by Jackson’s death as it is to be one of the born-again fans. The obvious comparison is the huge stream of sentimentality that engulfed the UK when Princess Diana died. This whole incident was rather embarrassing in hindsight for many and many don’t want to see a repeat performance.

My feelings are this performance hasn’t been repeated – at least not in the UK. Sentimentality, as opposed to genuine sympathy and empathy, can be a dangerous thing. It herds and manipulates people through one of their most vulnerable emotions. I couldn’t agree more that the whole response to the death of Michael Jackson, a truly great and legendary performer, singer and innovator of our time, has bordered on hysterical and resulted into some rather sickly and sometimes disturbing scenes of commemoration. However, they haven’t truly crossed the line as I feel happened with Princess Diana.

It is only natural for a star, such as Michael Jackson, who was celebrated and supported for so long, to elicit the type of media and public response that his death has generated. Throughout history we have seen this happen again and again with icons. I agree that it does seem very unfair that his death continued to mug the headlines and news reports whilst the regular tragic deaths of soldiers in Afghanistan scurried past as secondary news items, but did we truly expect anything more? It is easy to say that Michael Jackson was just another human being, which of course he was, but it is very naïve to think that his death would not be met with the response we have seen. Like any icon, he made history and a lot of people invested a lot in him. When an icon dies – as irrational and melodramatic as it seems – many people feel like something of them has died too.

When President Kennedy died, many felt like it was the death of a dream. All his faults, both personal and political, were forgotten in favour of this feeling of youthful and fresh change that was set to lead America into a new age. Michael Jackson’s philanthropy was certainly considerable, but I don’t ever think this is what constituted his position as an icon. Jackson also represented youth; more so he represented childhood. The unsubtle and youthful songs he produced were typical of children’s fantasies, particularly those first teenage years.

On the other side of the coin I think it is good that there was a lot criticism surrounding the hype over Michael Jackson’s death. The same couldn’t be said about Princess Diana’s death. Not long before her death the satire came thick on the “People’s Princess” across the media. This included criticism surrounding Diana’s publicity-seeking filmed attendance of open heart surgery. No sooner had she died then no-one dared speak in any way that was critical of her. For more on this and the subject of sentimentality, which I will no doubt return to in future articles, please read BBC journalist and aggressive interviewer David Humphrys’ book, “Devil’s Advocate”.

Jackson lived his life in the spotlight. He loved it and loathed it. That much appears to be the pattern if we look at his work. He was no tortured musician who just wanted to create art and shunned publicity. Michael Jackson embraced his iconic status and tried to elevate it to god-like proportions. The evidence can be seen in his work from the self-indulgent Moonwalker onwards. Think of the giant dictator like statues and the militaristic image that went alongside them when he promoted the HiStory album. Think of the Jesus like stance he struck on stage surrounded by children as performed Earth Song – a scene that English singer, Jarvis Cocker, felt was so repugnant that he protested by jumping on stage and performing an impromptu routine of his own.

The theme of that particular song also demonstrates the “pop” nature of the kingly status his close friend Elizabeth Taylor bestowed on him. Earth Song was a rather literal affair regarding the environment and the terrible things man has done to cause these problems. It wasn’t that far removed from “Heal the World”, which also seemed blissfully simple in its solutions to societal problems. I will always remember the latter as the song played at funeral for the child murder victim, James Bulger, and the public response to this appalling tragedy.

I don’t like to have regrets in life, but I would have loved to have attended a Michael Jackson concert. He certainly changed things with his music videos and his actual music is regularly sampled and covered, but it was on stage where the “truth” of the Michael Jackson icon was truly realized. Like Elvis, The Beetles, Mick Jagger, Tom Jones and Jim Morrison, Michael Jackson knew how to work an audience and they adored him for it. I remember watching the opening the 1992 concert in Bucharest, when I was officially a lapsed fan. Despite my distancing from all that was pop at the time, I couldn’t help but be snared from the beginning until the end of the concert. All the set pieces were extraordinary and Jackson’s performances were as good as ever, but the show’s opening said it all.

The audience were whooped up in anticipation as they awaited the singer’s arrival, listening to that most dramatic of classical anthems, Carmina Burana’s “O Fortuna”. It happened in a flash as Jackson leaped out of nowhere and then stood perfectly like a statue for what seemed like an eternity, propelling the audience into an ever-increasing state of euphoria. My mother, a born and bred circus woman, always talks about the “Wow Factor” in acts. This the defining moment in a performance that sends a stream of uncontrollable and chaotic energy through an audience. Many performers work for years perfecting and protecting this single element that will ensure they get repeat bookings on the best shows and in the best venues. Jackson’s wow factor is perhaps almost incomparable in at least the second half of 20th century. That time between his arrival and until he hit the first notes of the song, Jam, said everything about the years of hard work put into his career and the huge body of fans he had built around him. The audience knew they were going to get the show of their lives and that certainty is beautifully reflected in those few minutes of nothingness.

If you enjoyed this article and the one before it please vote for it on this website. It won't cost you a penny: Helium

Don't forget to check out Jamie Clubb's main blog www.jamieclubb.blogspot.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Michael Remembered: A Bloggy Round-Up (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Michael Jackson Dead at 50: A Life of Talent and Tragedy (time.com)
• Could 'Intervention' Have Helped a Star? (nytimes.com)