Live from Bucharest...Does it Mean Anything?

[Liberian Girl Heehee]

Every time I hear Behind the Mask and hear the crowd cheering from Michael's Bucharest concert, I wonder...WTH.  Why did they put the Live from Bucharest sound bite from the concert at the beginning and later again in the song?  Has anyone come up with a reasonable answer for why this was done? :?:  

So, I thought about it awhile and I have come to the conclusion that it is possibly a clue.  Could it be that Michael is in Bucharest and putting the Live from Bucharest cheers in is telling us that?  IDK...just a thought.  Anyone have any better ideas or reasons for the Live from Bucharest sounds mixed into this song?  

BTW, I am not one to find clues in every aspect of this roller coaster ride.  OK, back to my padded cell for now. :lol:

[bec]

Call me crazy but Michael always looked super weird to me in his close ups from that concert. He was very heavily made up.

[MJonmind]

I was just watching about 3 songs he did live in Bucharest, and he looks beautiful to me, totally MJ, IMO.
Liberian Girl Heehee, is there some specific things that cause you to identify the cheering as Bucharest? It's interesting that it is the only song that has an audience cheering.

[VeryLittleSusie]

Hmm.. "behind the mask" - Bucharest - heavy make up = mask - stage - audience

Conclusion:
MJ is speaking to the audience from behind the mask.

 :oops:
At least I tried...

[looking4truth]

Call me crazy but Michael always looked super weird to me in his close ups from that concert. He was very heavily made up.

You ain't crazy at all. I thought and still think at times that it's not Michael on that stage.

[bec]

Call me crazy but Michael always looked super weird to me in his close ups from that concert. He was very heavily made up.

You ain't crazy at all. I thought and still think at times that it's not Michael on that stage.

Ok, confession: first impression upon seeing him in the very first closeup shot on that concert tape: That's Not Michael.

But then I'm like, ok that's nuts. If that was the double they would never have used such tight close ups.

But first impressions should not be ignored. They are pure and raw and untainted by outside influence. So there's some merit there. Which is why I never completely disregarded my instincts.

[Le Papillon Bleu]

I heard it from a romanian press photographer that Michael never wanted close-up photos on that concert (?)

[jacilovesmichael]

I heard it from a romanian press photographer that Michael never wanted close-up photos on that concert (?)

He was probably exhausted and having skin issues. You could see that he had tons of make up on to cover his skin as well as more eye make up than usual. Being on stage can make you look washed out as it is, imagine being exhausted on top of that. I think that's all it was. I never for a minute have thought that wasn't Michael and I have been watching that particular concert obessively since I was 6 or 7.  :lol: But this whole thing is making me ask myself, "What do I know?".

[looking4truth]

Ok, confession: first impression upon seeing him in the very first closeup shot on that concert tape: That's Not Michael.

But then I'm like, ok that's nuts. If that was the double they would never have used such tight close ups.

But first impressions should not be ignored. They are pure and raw and untainted by outside influence. So there's some merit there. Which is why I never completely disregarded my instincts.

Yeah I've been there but I can't help what my gut tells me. I keep saying this but I really think something happened around the BAD era...like a switch or something. I have to do more research to see if my inkling has some merit but there are just too many things that were different from BAD to Dangerous. I also think it's interesting that with that taping at Bucharest, you see more of the audience. It's like they become apart of the show and there's a little less focus on Michael whereas with the BAD tour, most of the footage is focused on stage with Michael singing live and dancing for about 2 hours straight. It could be a coincidence that this happened but I can't help but wonder.

[Cully Surroga]

Ok, confession: first impression upon seeing him in the very first closeup shot on that concert tape: That's Not Michael.

But then I'm like, ok that's nuts. If that was the double they would never have used such tight close ups.

But first impressions should not be ignored. They are pure and raw and untainted by outside influence. So there's some merit there. Which is why I never completely disregarded my instincts.

Do you mean the Bucharest show that was aired then, or the later DVD release?
I remember the first close-up looked very strange to me, when it was live on tv. But it seems many images have been replaced on the dvd version (ie. audience clips from the Bad Tour etc), but i only saw this once so i don't remember well.

[~Souza~]

I think I mostly see MJ himself on that DVD, but there are moments that make me go hmmmmm, like indeed with the first shot.

[hesouttamylife]

But I loved when he sang Wanna Be Starting Something - He looked so, so, so,  :oops:   The only time I know it wasn't Michael was at the end when he flew acros the audience and after doning the monster face in Thriller.  Even the pants on dude didn't fit :lol: Slack in the back and we KNOW Michael had back :lol:  FLASHBACKS :lol:

Okay, off that subject now. Bad girl. :lol:  NEXT.

[kalispera]

Maybe it's because he liked the concert.

[kalispera]

But how can you tell? I can't hear that well.

[bec]

Ok, confession: first impression upon seeing him in the very first closeup shot on that concert tape: That's Not Michael.

But then I'm like, ok that's nuts. If that was the double they would never have used such tight close ups.

But first impressions should not be ignored. They are pure and raw and untainted by outside influence. So there's some merit there. Which is why I never completely disregarded my instincts.

Do you mean the Bucharest show that was aired then, or the later DVD release?
I remember the first close-up looked very strange to me, when it was live on tv. But it seems many images have been replaced on the dvd version (ie. audience clips from the Bad Tour etc), but i only saw this once so i don't remember well.

On the DVD. I didn't see it live or the first time around.

I just can't forget that first impression. It's like seeing someone you know.... and then they don't look familiar. Your brain spots the difference even if cognitively you can't determine any.

I don't think it's just the makeup.

But what is possible, is that was the first time I ever saw Michael so CLOSE. That I had an impression of what I believed his face to be, after staring at so many images of him, and watching so many videos, for so many years... that the man and the face I thought I knew and saw wasn't him at all. That THIS live from Bucharest man IS Michael, the real Michael, not under perfect lighting or perfect angles as you'd see in promo pics or video shoots, but the real live and super close up Michael... and I just had such a false impression all these years, of what I thought his facial features were. Like my brain made them into something else due to the relative lack of detail of a portrait as opposed to being on live camera.

Because as every girl knows, not all pics are flattering. They all might be you, but to a stranger you could look like 2 completely different people in 2 different pics. I'd use some of myself to illustrate but I won't because I'd have to put up a bad pic of myself and I'm not quite that confident, lol.

So maybe Bucharest just is Michael, the real Michael, and I was surprised because what I had thought was the real Michael was actually just the properly presented, posed, and lighted Michael... and I was just surprised by the lack of perfection in the real Michael (that my subconscious brain, with the help of skilled photographers, has been substituting) that the super close up HD quality footage reveals.

So that truly is, then, a man behind a mask. It just happens to be me that made him wear it.