American conspiracy theorist Alex Jones is the subject of Dan Reed's latest documentary. Photo: Getty
Dan Reed's dogs greet me with suspicion at the door of his London office and studio. The Bafta-winning director and producer is one of Britain's most important and influential filmmakers, but having directed the 2019 Michael Jackson documentary Leaving Neverland, his pets' protective instincts are probably wise.
Following the release of the film, in which adults Wade Robson and James Safechuck detailed alleged sexual abuse they suffered as children as friends and traveling companions of the singer, Reed became a target. in a «terrible» trolling campaign by Jackson fans, which he said was «quite lengthy.»
Reed's new HBO film, The Truth vs. Alex Jones, puts him in the spotlight among conspiracy theorists. However, the 59-year-old has found himself in dangerous situations many times during his three-decade career, from being involved with a South African crime gang in Cape Fear (1994) to filming on the front lines of the Kosovo war in The Valley. (2000). “It was extremely dangerous. There were a lot of very close, straight lines of fire, bang-bang, real people pointing the gun at you,” he recalls.
By comparison, some of Jackson's fan antics were «pretty stupid» but events also turned sinister. The impostor called various utility companies in an attempt to obtain Reed's phone number and bank details. He asked for records and heard «a man saying well, 'This is Dan Reed, I'm having trouble remembering what bank account it was' [from which bills are paid]. He called again and again.»
Michael Jackson with Wade Robson’s family in the film “Leaving Neverland” Photo: Wade Robson Archive/AMOS Pictures
Man I collected small parts every time. “Eventually he got my phone number. And then he sent all my phone records to an email account in Switzerland,” Reed says, concluding: “There must be some money behind this.”
He's not sure what they were looking for, but says, «They seemed to convince themselves that we paid Wade and James to be in the movie, which we didn't do in any way, direct or indirect, not a dime.» And they still seem to be convinced that I made a lot of money on Leaving Neverland, which I didn't.»
There were other events as well. Reed is currently filming his next film. A California appeals court has decided that Robson and Safechuck's lawsuits against Jackson's production companies, which were owned by the singer at the time of his death in 2009, can go to a jury trial. It took them a decade to get this far in the trial, Reed said, with «the Jackson camp constantly trying to delay or derail the cases.»
At first there were problems with the statute of limitations, and in 2020 and 2021, after Reed had already begun filming the next film, the claims were dismissed: “The lower court judge accepted the defendants’ arguments that, since Michael Jackson was the sole shareholder, and no one could do anything to stop him raping children,” Reed says. But he notes that the appeal court said it would be «wrong» to rule that the company was «exempt from the positive duty to protect these children.»
“It was worded very harshly,” Reed says, likening it to a slap in the face to the defense. He notes that travel, accommodation, and indeed all the boys’ movements were controlled by the company, whose parents settled far from them. Reed describes a dramatic moment in court when lawyers for the companies argued that under California corporate law, “even if you are an Olympic swimmer walking past a child drowning in the pool, if you are a corporation, you have no obligation to help that child. And then James' appellate lawyer intervened: «Well, you put the child in the pool.»
However, the «fall» of Jackson predicted by Reed did not happen. As we speak, a musical celebrating his life is playing in the West End. “I don’t particularly want to go see this musical,” Reed says, emphasizing: “I’m not engaging in a vendetta against Jackson. I just want Wade and James to get their way in court because I think it's important to them. And it is also important for Jackson's side that these allegations be voiced in court, where their truth or not can be determined.
He will, however, go and watch the Jackson biopic, which began filming earlier this year. when it comes out next April. Reed says he read the script, which «appears to directly address child molestation allegations, when in fact it simply dismisses them.»
The finished film may be very different from the script, he admits: “I don’t want to sound like I know exactly what’s going to be in the film.” But, he says, the script presents Jackson as «a misunderstood, slightly strange man who 'never had a childhood' and therefore loved children very much… You never see him preparing to spend the night alone with a child.» It is assumed that whenever he was with children, there were several children and nothing strange happened. And also that the parents of the first child to press charges, Jordan Chandler, were gold diggers.
“These are not ideal victims,” Reed notes. “These are flawed people, sometimes greedy, but this does not mean that their child was lying.
“There’s a scene of Michael Jackson’s penis being photographed,” he adds, “because Jordan Chandler showed that there were certain marks on the underside of Jackson’s penis that were spots. So the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department took a photo of his penis, which he wasn't very happy about. I actually interviewed one of the detectives who was there when it happened. And in the script there is a line that says that the described defects “do not match.” This is simply not true. The spots matched. Every law enforcement official I spoke with said and stated that the spots matched. People who have studied the case closely believe that this was the reason Jackson agreed. Because the child described marks on his penis that would only be visible if his penis were erect.
“The same child thought Jackson's penis was circumcised. An autopsy showed that this was not the case. But if you're a guy, you know that they can look very similar when they're excited.
“I was surprised,” says Reed, “that this very big and expensive biopic, made by the big British producer Graham King (who produced Bohemian Rhapsody), took so much effort to refute the claims made in Leaving Neverland… But I I think, you know, they'll make a bank, and all the people in it will make a bank, and in my opinion that's why they're doing it.»
It was the reaction to Leaving Neverland, he says, that got him «really interested in misinformation and what I came to call denialism.» I remember thinking, these fans, this whole online community, are talking about two little kids who, as adults, say they were hurt, and of course the first thing you do is say, “Let's just watch.” . We do not consider our man guilty. But let's go and talk to them.» But instead they became the target of insane insults and death threats, vilified not only by fans but also by lawyers… so I became interested in the kind of ruthlessness and cruelty of this group of people who cling to the fantasy of that something may not be true.”
The theme of his new film, The Truth vs. Alex Jones, was a perfect example. Jones, a radio show host and founder of the conspiracy website InfoWars, is one of America's loudest populist voices with a large following. Hours after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in the US, in which 20 children aged six and seven were killed by a mentally disturbed shooter wielding a semi-automatic rifle, Jones went on air and claimed the shooting was «staged» by the government as a pretext for introducing arms control. “I said they’re coming for our guns,” Jones ranted, “they’re coming, they’re coming, they’re coming.”
Scarlett Lewis and Neal Heslin, parents of Sandy Hook shooting victims, in The Truth vs. Alex Jones. : HBO
Others agreed that Jones called the massacre, in which six teachers were also killed, “fake.” They were obsessed with details that they claimed proved it was a hoax: «Why are there no trauma helicopters?» – and gained greater fame thanks to Jones, who returned to the story again and again over the years. Subsequently, according to a poll in the film, almost a quarter of Americans believe that the shooting never happened.
The results were heartbreaking. The parents of the dead children, who had already suffered terrible grief and trauma, were subjected to ridicule and threats. Murdered six-year-old Emily Parker's father Robbie Parker, who stepped out in front of waiting media to be interviewed, was described by Jones as a «soap opera actor» — prompting a torrent of abuse at Emily's memorial on Facebook. page. “They destroyed the memory of this six-year-old girl who did nothing in her life to deserve any of this,” Parker tells Reed. Eventually, some families decided to sue Jones for libel.
Reed has previously faced counterarguments claiming that real events were faked. His BBC/HBO film Terror on the Mall (2014) examines the 2013 attack by the Islamist terrorist group al-Shabaab on a Nairobi shopping complex that killed 62 civilians and five soldiers. The film is the highest achievement of objective documentary journalism, but accusations against the actors and fake blood have appeared online in archival video materials.
This was before the “hoax culture” became widespread. “It was strange to me,” says Reed, “because it was obviously complete nonsense. I met these people and saw their scars — you can't chop off your leg or rip your guts out to be part of a prank.»
'Their children really existed': parents of Sandy Hook victim Benjamin Wheeler in 2013. : AFP
What caught Reed's attention was the prospect that the Sandy Hook shooting would be challenged in court. “I'm really interested in how we get to the truth as we enter the post-truth era. What leverage does an ordinary person have to get to the bottom of the truth if necessary? These families felt a desperate need to establish the truth and get it recognized.”
The cases were filed in the spring of 2018 and were finally settled by two separate juries last October. “When you stretch out a film over four or five years, you stretch out all your resources,” says Reed, “We make sacrifices and stick with it to get it to the end.” The director himself does all the interviews, including with families representing the entire political spectrum, he notes. «Neil Heslin, one of the fathers in this case, is a member of the NRA and a Trump supporter, but opposes how easy it is to get an assault rifle.»
In the film, Reed studiously avoids controversy but allows the families to counter some of the most egregious arguments made by Jones, such as the shooter's «incredible» «99.9 percent murder rate.» Teacher Lauren Russo tried to hide her class of 16 in a tiny bathroom in the back of the classroom, into which the shooter fired 80 rounds, leaving only one student alive.
Jones did not agree to be interviewed, but Reed is careful to give hoax theorists such as Wolfgang Halbig and Kelly Watt, co-author of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, a chance to make their points. Watt sent an email to Irving Posner offering to exhume the body of his six-year-old son Noah to prove that he was truly dead. «I've seen a lot of real crime, and they exhume bodies all the time,» she tells the camera.
“They are completely convinced and completely devoid of empathy,” says Reed. “They are a different species than Alex Jones. I think he knows full well that the lies he tells are lies. As far as I can tell, he is not an idiot or mentally ill. He just really wants to make a lot of money.”
Scene from the film “The Truth vs. Alex Jones” Photo: HBO
The documentary focuses on how Jones uses his platform to sell expensive brand-name dietary supplements. It also shows how certain stories, such as his Sandy Hook campaign, lead to dramatic increases in viewership and sales. The engine behind this challenge to our idea of “shared facts” is “online fraud,” Reed says. “Alex Jones is a fraud. There's a lot of money to be made, you annoy people, you make them worry, there are a lot of good people who feel really uncomfortable, insecure and worried about the state of the world. All the categories by which they have organized their lives are falling apart: men and women, the work they think should be done [in the US] is done «over there», everything has fallen out of place.»
He compares Jones to Donald Trump. Reed has produced Four Hours at the Capitol with director Jamie Roberts, which details how the events of January 6, 2021 unfolded, based on footage filmed that day, and is directing a follow-up film for Channel 4 about Trump's attempts to repeal the law 2020. election result. “It was a scam. Trump, claiming the election was stolen, raised more than $200 million and is still doing so. «The Democrats stole this election, give me some money.»
Juries in Texas and Connecticut awarded Jones damages totaling about $1.5 billion. The coda to Reed's film, which does not yet have a UK release date, states that Jones has declared bankruptcy and has yet to pay anything to the families but is continuing to broadcast.
“These parents would probably benefit from Infowars being shut down and Alex Jones becoming a TV salesman,” Reed says. “But that will never happen. And I think parents are realistic about this. They defended their honor… they didn’t lie, they didn’t lie, they didn’t let anyone see. Their children existed.»
Свежие комментарии