It’s a movie starring his nephew in the lead role, approved by his estate, and by all accounts it just feels like an attempt to whitewash him. This is a man who was accused of being a serial child molester, settled with a family out of court for $25 million just to avoid a trial (Chandler), and openly admitted he slept in the same bed as kids while he was an adult (Bashir interview), among other things. I don’t really see what there is to debate.
Anything pointing this out gets backlash on movie-related subreddits, which I find wild. It makes me wonder, if Epstein could sing and dance, would he have gotten a biopic too? Would people be defending him like this?
To nitpick: it’s fair to say his relationships with children were inappropriate. The stipulated behavior crosses a lot of lines of propriety.
The stipulated behavior doesn’t amount to being harmful or abusive.
Yeah, I can see that if you define inappropriate as “against societal norms”. I intended the word to mean abusive or sexual in nature.
I think even what we do know about his relationship with children was harmful, just not to the same extent as rape.
Even if he was just having sleepovers with kids, that’s not a healthy thing for Michael or the kids. For one, it sends very confusing signals to the kids in terms of what is acceptable behavior. Secondly, it dragged these kids into Michael’s own traumas (assuming that is the cause of the behavior).
I’m not sure if any of it would rise to a legal level of wrongdoing, but I don’t think anyone was really looking out for the kids best interests regardless of what was really going on.
It was not just sleepovers.
Good argument, definitely provided valid proof or even anything that can hint at it and you also held an objective view and humility like the comments above…
///ssssss
You should feel bad about yourself for being so dumb and lazy to have written that comment. (And to be clear, I say nothing against or for any views here).