Gillian Anderson, centre, as Miss Havisham, at Satis House, welcomes Pip Pirrip.
Just watched the first episode of the new BBC One adaptation of Charles Dickens' classic Great Expectations. Gillian Anderson's portrayal of Miss Havisham is somewhat different from previous incarnations in that she plays her as a beautiful, faded, ethereal being rather than an aged, dessicated woman.
While I was watching I was put in mind of Michael Jackson and Neverland and Michael Jackson and the short film, Ghosts.
The first we hear of Pip's potential new adventure is when the announcement is made that Mis Havisham "wants a boy". This is superb news for the grasping Mrs Gargery who thinks that the whole family will be "raised up" through the boy. This made me think of the hideous Janet Arvizo and her hopes for her son Gavin.
Interestingly, we learn that Pip, Miss Havisham, and her adopted daughter, Estella, are all orphans, not unlike tghe Lost Boys of Peter pan's Neverland. Miss Havisham takes Pip out of his everyday surroundings, gives him hope that he will go onto better things in life, but, when she realises that Estella is falling for Pip, she discards him. Satis House, the embodiment of Gothic, is not unlike Neverland or, more appropriately, the master's house in Ghosts.
Is Miss Havisham deliberately cruel? I don't think so. She's not a well woman, is she? Likewise, I don't think MJ was deliberately cruel when he lost interest in various children and best friends. He was constantly looking to fill an emotional void. As you may know I don't believe MJ was guilty of any physical abuse with children. Even Ian Halperin, author of Michael Jackson Unmasked, who set out undercover to prove that the singer was guilty could find no evidence whatsoever.
What I do believe is that MJ could be guilty, at worst, of emotional manipulation or at least being unclear or capricious in his dealings with children, as he could be with adults and, in later years, his music.
Is Miss Havisham deliberately cruel? I don't think so. She's not a well woman, is she? Likewise, I don't think MJ was deliberately cruel when he lost interest in various children and best friends. He was constantly looking to fill an emotional void. As you may know I don't believe MJ was guilty of any physical abuse with children. Even Ian Halperin, author of Michael Jackson Unmasked, who set out undercover to prove that the singer was guilty could find no evidence whatsoever.
What I do believe is that MJ could be guilty, at worst, of emotional manipulation or at least being unclear or capricious in his dealings with children, as he could be with adults and, in later years, his music.
0 comments:
Post a Comment