The real reason for the Liberian Girl theme
JMseesMJ
Posts: 48
"Tomorrow the illusion starts"<br /><br />Almost 2 years have passed and it's hard to tell which information is hoax related and which is completely irrelevant. News that cause a turmoil on the forum and elsewhere, are they true, are they a hoax or a deliberate distraction ? No one can tell for sure anymore. Did we just lose our cognitive skills in the course of time or were we conditioned to be unable to trust our gut feeling ?<br /> <br />Therefore I'd like to draw your attention back to the time around June 2009, because I think the explanation of the reasons for Michael to fake his death can be found there. It's right in front of our eyes, for everybody to see and it was there all along, put there by him personally in a format that is self-explanatory.<br /><br />Did you ever ask yourself what might have been the real reason for using the Liberian Girl theme at the memorial and burial ?<br /><br />Various possibilities were discussed, most think it is mainly because in the end we see that it was himself who directed and controlled it and that this alone is a striking parallel to what we are going through now. Well, that is certainly one aspect, the shot with him and the camera was even shown at the memorial.<br />But there is more, it's multilayered. The LB theme is key, because it's self-explanatory when you know what else lies behind the video.<br /><br />There was an unflattering article from August 2009 about the LG short film on a site called The Consequence of Sound. In it the author wonders about the discrepancy of how the most inventive video artist of all time could produce such a disappointment which isn't even connected to the song. <br /><br /><!-- m -->http://consequenceofsound.net/2009/08/b ... rian-girl/<!-- m --><br /> <br />The relevant part of the article is this most interesting comment from an outraged reader his name is 'doesn't matter':<br /><br /><br />
<br /><br /><br /><br />Does this person remind you of someone ??? <!-- smoonwalk_/ -->moonwalk_/<!-- smoonwalk_/ --> <br /><br />Michael the visionary has just the right grip on reality that allowed him to see things for what they are, even at the zenith of his career in the 80ties, or what would become of things (his career as a performer) should he not intervene to prevent the near inevitable.... <br />Yet Michael is also the ultimate prankster, he likes to deceive people, create illusions for the audience, the fans, the general public, even his family. We can see evidence of that throughout his career (disguise appearance and/ or voice in order to fool people, involvement in various projects under pseudonym, his interest in all things magic etc.).... <br /><br />Now we need to connect this with what we know about Michael shortly before he 'died'. Let's revisit interviews with Kenny Ortega. Remember he stated repeatedly that Michael was in exceptionally good spirit the day before his exit. <br />In my opinion it's very important what Michael said that evening and the way he said good bye to Kenny, because these words come from the man himself. Some may think that it was said because of the Dirty Diana illusion which was scheduled for rehearsal for the next day (June/ 25/ 2009) and he simply was looking forward to it, I don't think so.<br /><br /> http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1624853/kenny-ortega-discusses-michael-jacksons-final-rehearsals.jhtml<br /><br />Watch this video from around minute 8:40 - 11:00 (10:02 !)<br /><br /><!-- m -->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Bu-RKCy ... ata_player<!-- m --><br /><br />The whole 'death'-project THIS IS IT seems to be the perfect illusion - a brilliant ending of a unique career. It seems that this ending is ongoing, because there are still lessons to be learned. Or is it our new mindset that Michael initiated in us that keeps us alert and more aware of things ?<br /><br />What conclusion would you draw ?<br /> <br />I hope I can ease your mind a bit with this post, maybe a Bam isn't the most important aspect of this project. Maybe it helps you to make that transformation from "this masterpiece isn't complete without a Bam/ reveal" to "this masterpiece is simply perfect as it is", because we can SEE the explanation for it OURSELVES if we look at the right places"..... <br /><br /><br /><br />[size=8pt]Btw, I know there was a thread about it in 2010 see here<br /> http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=253&t=13732&p=228559&hilit=Edward+Albee#p228559<br />unfortunately it died down much too soon, but I think this subject is worth to be revived)[/size]<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /> <br />doesnt matter<br />1 year ago<br />Gillian Rosheuvel, you said: "Its wretchedness is only amplified by the fact that this video was made by one of — if not the — most inventive video artists of all time. He, who married visuals and songs in such surprising and inventive ways, produced THIS?"<br />I hope that my following words would help you to explain your daughter why THIS video is the work of a genius.<br />First of all to appreciate it you really NEED to see the full version, which is 5:43 minutes long. Here is the link: <!-- m -->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v..<!-- m -->.<br />Hint: credits are the most important in this particular video! <br />Stop the video at mark 5:24, there you'll see a man in bondage with 3 arms and "?" under his picture. Simple joke? Barely.....Read this, though it's too long, you won't be disappointed:<br /><br /><br />The Man Who Had Three Arms<br />From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br />This is a two-act play for three actors by Edward Albee.<br />The play takes place in a theatre where the main character HIMSELF is about to speak to the assembled group about his life of celebrity as The Man Who Had Three Arms.The other two actors of the play, MAN and WOMAN, play, variously, two people who are introducing HIMSELF, the parents and wife of HIMSELF, and the manager of HIMSELF. In the first act, HIMSELF describes his transformation from a successful family man to a person who is horrified to discover that a third arm is growing from between his shoulder blades. In the second act, HIMSELF describes being on the celebrity circuit and all that entails—“money, sex, adulation”—while he grows more and more in debt. His wife leaves him. He falls apart in front of the audience only to deal with a final surprise. Albee directed the Broadway premiere of the play at the Lyceum Theatre in New York City in April 1983 with Robert Drivas in the title role. <br /><!-- m -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T..<!-- m -->.<br /><br />And here's the excerpts of this play's review for better understanding what it's all about:<br /><br />THE MAN WHO HAD THREE ARMS<br />By Frank Rich <br />Published: April 6, 1983, Wednesday<br />HIMSELF is mad because he was once ''the most famous man in the world'' and now he isn't so famous anymore. A standard-cut advertising man with a wife and three kids, he had one day awakened to discover that he was growing a third arm on his back. Suddenly Himself was sought after by royalty, cheered by ticker-tape parades and toasted by talk-show hosts. He had become, one might say, a contemporary Elephant Man – complete with trunk.<br />But when we meet Himself, the parade has passed by. The third arm ultimately withered away, and so did the protagonist's celebrity and fortune. While he used to command $25,000 for a personal appearance, he now speaks for ''half a grand and a toddle or two of gin.'' In the lecture we see, Himself is a last-minute replacement for a morefamous speaker who has died. Drunk and in debt, he's now just another ordinary-looking man at the end of his rope.<br />One of the more shocking lapses of Mr. Albee's writing is that he makes almost no attempt even to pretend that Himself is anything other than a maudlin stand-in for himself, with the disappearing arm representing an atrophied talent. <br />It's hard to feel much sympathy for a man who, by his own account, greedily helped himself to the perks of fame – unlimited publicity, power, money and sex – and now complains that the adulation was ''idiotic,'' that the power was short-lived, that the fortune was recklessly squandered, and that the sex was empty. <br />''Baggage'' is easily the nicest term by which Himself refers to women. Indeed, the only person not treated contemptuously during the monologue is the speaker, who frequently likens his martyrdom to Christ's.<br />HIMSELF whips himself and the audience ''into mutual rage and revulsion.'' But only at the end does the anger come to a point. It's then that Mr. Albee at last begins to deal seriously with the issue his play wants to be about – an inability, as Himself puts it, ''to distinguish between my self-disgust and my disgust with others.'' As the curtain falls, the sobbing HIMSELF falls to his knees, torn between asking the despised audience to leave and begging it to stay.<br />It's a painful, if embarrassing, spectacle, because it shows us the real and sad confusion that exists somewhere beneath the narcissistic arrogance and bile that the author uses as a dodge to avoid introspection the rest of the time. While ''The Man Who Had Three Arms'' is mostly an act of self-immolation, its final display of self-revelation holds out at least the slender hope that Mr. Albee might yet pick himself up from the floor. <br /><br /><br />Did you see any parallels?<br /><br />Watch this video one more time. From the very beginning its main theme is illusions and audience's deception . The video is dedicated to Liz Taylor but where's she? It begins with "a scene in an African village that seems related to the song’s lyrics", but it's another illusion. Then we see a girl, but it's not about her. "Who's directing this?", asks Whoopi and we see Spielberg.<br /><br />Dreyfuss asks: "WHICH MICHAEL JACKSON ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?" <br /><br />"One of the most inventive video artists of all time, who married visuals and songs in such surprising and inventive ways?" Over-operated freak with a prosthetic nose - Wacko Jacko? A child prodigy? The man, who had "weird" attraction to children? A reclusive pop-star? A drug-addict? etc. How many faces of Michael Jackson we've seen through all 40 years of his career? Do we still know whom he really was?<br />Probably, he was just a human being with his "anguish, pain and turbulations" and shaky relationships with audience who both praised and despised him at the same time. "The victim of selfish kind of love" denied the right to make mistakes without being critisized by each and everyone. And certainly a genius, foreseer, if you like, who knew exactly from the very beginning, how the "show" of his life would develop and end up, but unwilling to change anything, 'cause though "it was strange what he had to deal with, he dealt with it anyway".<br /><br />It's just my humble opinion about the message of this video.
Comments
"What one wishes is to be touched by truth and to be able to interpret that truth so that one may use what one is feeling and experiencing, be it despair or joy, in a way that will add meaning to one's life and will hopefully touch others as well. This is art in its highest form. Those moments of enlightenment are what i continue to live for."
Maybe This Is It was a project dedicated to offer us "those moments of enlightenment"?
I will give this more thought. I am glad you brought it back up for discussion. There are many threads that have died down as other more recent threads push against our time and thought processes. I can't remember when my mind was so riveted to an explanation. And I loved it. Thanks again. I'll respond more as I'm able.
Many blessings to you this day and every day.
Sometimes I am amazed how you people in general find all sort of links to all sort of interesting blogs with all sort of mysterious characters who post profound comments <!-- ssuspicious// -->suspicious//<!-- ssuspicious// -->
The man with 3 arms symbolises Michael and Elisabeth too ?
The link to the LB extended version didn't work for me and I never saw that version.
So this mysterious poster "doesn't matter" (oh yes it matters <!-- slolol/ -->lolol/<!-- slolol/ --> ) thinks the LB video is about illusions and deception of the audience more than about directing and controlling the action from behind the scene.
OK the next logical question is - was that "doesn't matter" character Michael Jackson <!-- slolol/ -->lolol/<!-- slolol/ --> ?
Because if he was Michael Jackson - we can know for sure he's alive.
And if he wasn't Michael Jackson - his opinion is interesting and profound anyway but not that exciting <!-- s
Anyway, I must confess I feel kind of stupid because I never knew this video had an extended version.
And I still can't watch it on youtube.
I agree, I'm always glad when people bring up old topics with new insight.
Then all these illusions in the video and the picture of the man with the three arms. That picture cannot be there by chance. And then the theatrical story. We should not even forget that Michael visited the place where the bones of the elephant man were kept, in London. And also, that he would visit people and places, that he felt an attachement to. For example, he has visited Oona Chapplin, the widow of Charlie Chapplin. I think that you are right: He possibly compared himself with the man with the three arms. If this is the case, he definetely wanted to state his feelings and share them with us through his art. To share his anguish, his pain, his knowledge of the future and much more.
And finally the meaning of the LG theme in his funeral. I see two possible explanations, if of course we admit that it was on purpose there to signify something. The first one is the one you stated, that this is the final illusion and a final lesson through his art to us and of course that it ends there. Let's not forget the final curtain-call. The other one is that while the curtain falls(as in the theatrical play) he begs the audience to leave and to stay at the same time. This symbolises the contradiction in his own self. I can interpret this as MJ attacking to his former self(perhaps fame, money, sex, addictions) and all those that were attached to it(media, tabloids, police, businessmen) and making a clear path for his new self and those who love him. Let's not forget his spiritual advisor's words that "Michael was changing" and that while the play finishes there is a feeling that "Himself" will stand on his own feet again. Perhaps, this signifies that after having changed and having his beloved ones he will continue living. The how is the question. Will he continue living away of the public knowledge, or considering his fans as some of his beloved ones he will come back?
About Michael changing himself.....we see him so much as a prankster but in TII he looks nothing like a prankster to me.
I see him in TII a serious man, maybe too serious, concerned about the planet, about the people. In fact in the trailer they tried to promote another image of Michael, Michael the profound man, the thinker, at least that is what I saw.
Is it possible that from 40 to 50 he changed that much ? Where ends the hoax and where starts the real man Michael Jackson?