'Allen v. Farrow' has caused a lot of controversy, mainly because it is rare to see the dark side of a Hollywood family, explained by the members of the family. But the issue laying underneath is the same as in 'Leaving Neverland': accusations of child abuse that took place several decades ago.
At first glance, this seems a really admirable task: to hold accountable those who haven't been held accountable (even if it is after their death). As I usually remind, abuses against children is one of the few (if not the only) passage in the New Testament were Jesus justifies something that could be interpreted as a death penalty:
'If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.' Matthew 18:6
...And I have to say that I would support the literal interpretation of this passage.
But if to think a little more about it, there are several things that shoudl concern us. The first question is why now? Why not before? Why not 20,25,30 years ago, when this abuses allegedly happened? Why these abuses, that arrived to court, were not properly investigated?
And this brings us to the first thing that I feel is missing from these documentaries: a more critical approach at the system that allows these alleged crimes to go unpunished, and especially out-of-court settlements. We saw this also in Harvey Wenstein case.
One thing that is completely undeniable is that if these allegations are true, this a true complete failure of the system. Yet, when you look at these documentaries, they present it just as some celebrity who got away with some "unappropiate behaviour", like this, if it was true, is not one of the most horrible crimes that can ever be commited.
But also the press and the media are to be questioned as why they didn't act in the moment. I remember hearing once as an excuse that "Michael Jackson was too powerful" and I thought what means "too powerful"? Was Michael Jackson too powerful for the CNN or The New York Times? Or were they just afraid too antagonize his production company, and it just a question of money? It seems like this documentaries are made when the accused person is not making big money anymore for the industry.
And then comes what seems the take-home message of these documentaries: no justice was done then, but now we make this documentary and we set the record right, we tell you how evil is/was this person and now there is justice. No, there isn't. Justice is not made by documentary makers, justice is made in the courts. To make a documentary about a crime commited 25 years ago that went unpunished is a failure of the system. But it feels like the companies that produce this documentaries are saying "it doesn't matter that justice was not made in the right moment, that this person was not condemned. we have made justice now". And it is something that it is also scary, media corporations presenting themselves as this sort of supreme court but that responds not to people but to a CEO and their shareholders.
The only point of such documentaries is to point out why this went unpunished and what we can do to solve it. From my interest in this subject I have come to the conclusion that there is always someone who knows, someone who suspects, someone who could and should have done something, that if these predators commit their crimes is because somebody has looked the other way (conciously or uncounciously). This is the way we stop this crimes, and not by making documentaries 20 years later.
At first glance, this seems a really admirable task: to hold accountable those who haven't been held accountable (even if it is after their death). As I usually remind, abuses against children is one of the few (if not the only) passage in the New Testament were Jesus justifies something that could be interpreted as a death penalty:
'If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.' Matthew 18:6
...And I have to say that I would support the literal interpretation of this passage.
But if to think a little more about it, there are several things that shoudl concern us. The first question is why now? Why not before? Why not 20,25,30 years ago, when this abuses allegedly happened? Why these abuses, that arrived to court, were not properly investigated?
And this brings us to the first thing that I feel is missing from these documentaries: a more critical approach at the system that allows these alleged crimes to go unpunished, and especially out-of-court settlements. We saw this also in Harvey Wenstein case.
One thing that is completely undeniable is that if these allegations are true, this a true complete failure of the system. Yet, when you look at these documentaries, they present it just as some celebrity who got away with some "unappropiate behaviour", like this, if it was true, is not one of the most horrible crimes that can ever be commited.
But also the press and the media are to be questioned as why they didn't act in the moment. I remember hearing once as an excuse that "Michael Jackson was too powerful" and I thought what means "too powerful"? Was Michael Jackson too powerful for the CNN or The New York Times? Or were they just afraid too antagonize his production company, and it just a question of money? It seems like this documentaries are made when the accused person is not making big money anymore for the industry.
And then comes what seems the take-home message of these documentaries: no justice was done then, but now we make this documentary and we set the record right, we tell you how evil is/was this person and now there is justice. No, there isn't. Justice is not made by documentary makers, justice is made in the courts. To make a documentary about a crime commited 25 years ago that went unpunished is a failure of the system. But it feels like the companies that produce this documentaries are saying "it doesn't matter that justice was not made in the right moment, that this person was not condemned. we have made justice now". And it is something that it is also scary, media corporations presenting themselves as this sort of supreme court but that responds not to people but to a CEO and their shareholders.
The only point of such documentaries is to point out why this went unpunished and what we can do to solve it. From my interest in this subject I have come to the conclusion that there is always someone who knows, someone who suspects, someone who could and should have done something, that if these predators commit their crimes is because somebody has looked the other way (conciously or uncounciously). This is the way we stop this crimes, and not by making documentaries 20 years later.
No comments:
Post a Comment