International
Jackson death doctor had huge debts, trial hears
MUMBAI: Michael Jackson‘s doctor Conrad Murray was in dire financial straits when he was hired to care for the US superstar, a policeman testified Wednesday.
Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2011 over Jackson‘s death, had tens of thousands of dollars in debts, including unpaid student loans, credit card bills and rent on his business, the policeman said at a trial over the late King of Pop‘s 2009 death.
Jackson‘s 82-year-old mother Katherine is suing tour promoter AEG Live over her son‘s death, accusing it of negligently hiring Murray and ignoring signs that the singer was deeply unwell, in their pursuit of profits.
Her lawyers say Murray‘s financial woes made him willing to do whatever Jackson wanted — including giving him the drug that killed him — because he desperately needed the $150,000 monthly salary on offer.
Detective Orlando Martinez, who investigated Jackson‘s death on 25 June 2009 — days before the tour was due to start — said Murray had debts in various places, including the US states of Nevada and Missouri, some of over $100,000.
"Does this substantiate your opinion that Dr. Murray was in dire financial straits?" Katherine Jackson‘s lawyer Brian Panish asked Martinez in the LA superior court; where the trial started Monday.
"Yes," replied Martinez.
The 50-year-old singer died from an overdose of powerful sedative and anesthetic propofol, administered by Murray to help the "Thriller" legend deal with chronic insomnia.
At the time of his death, he was rehearsing for a series of 50 shows in London, organised with AEG, in an attempt to revive his career and ease his financial woes.
In opening statements Monday, Katherine Jackson‘s lawyer accused AEG of sacrificing the troubled star in a "ruthless" pursuit of profit in the months before his death.
But Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) lawyer Marvin Putnam argued the mega pop star had hidden the evidence of his addiction and health woes from everyone, including his family and the concert promoters.
Putman also said Jackson was some $400 million dollars in debt when he approached AEG in 2008 with the idea of putting on the London shows, which were to be followed by a global tour and a possible Las Vegas residency.
On Tuesday the first witness at the trial, paramedic Richard Senneff, testified that Jackson looked emaciated and like someone at the end of a chronic illness when he arrived at the scene.
Wednesday‘s court session was shortened because one member of the six-man, six-woman jury had to attend a family funeral. The trial continues Thursday, with detective Martinez due to take the stand again. (AFP)
LOS ANGELES: Acting has never been an easy profession, but in recent years, it has acquired a new existential anxiety. Artificial intelligence can now mimic faces, clone voices and, in theory at least, speak any language it is fed. The fear that actors may soon be replaced by algorithms no longer belongs exclusively to science fiction. And yet, despite the rise of digital inauthenticity, some performers remain stubbornly resistant to replacement. The reason is not celebrity, nor even talent. It is language.
On paper, this should not be a problem. AI can translate. It can imitate accents. It can string together grammatically correct sentences in dozens of languages. But acting, inconveniently, is not about grammatical correctness. It is about meaning, and meaning is where AI still falters.
Machine translation offers a cautionary tale. Google Translate, now powered by neural AI, has improved markedly since its debut in 2006. It can manage menus, emails and airport signage with impressive efficiency. What it struggles with, however, are the moments that matter most: idioms, metaphors, irony, and cultural shorthand. Ask it to translate a joke, a threat disguised as politeness, or a line heavy with emotional subtext, and it begins to unravel. Acting lives precisely in those gaps.
This matters because film language is rarely literal. Scripts, particularly in independent cinema, rely on figurative speech and symbolism to convey what characters cannot say outright. Pedro Almodóvar’s Volver is a useful example. The film’s recurring use of red operates on multiple levels: grief, desire, repression, liberation, and memory. These meanings are inseparable from the Spanish cultural context and emotional cadence. A translation may convey the words, but not the weight they carry. An AI-generated performance might replicate the sound, but not the sense.
This is where multilingual actors gain their edge. Performers such as Penélope Cruz and SofÃa Vergara do not simply switch between languages; they move between cultural logics. Their fluency allows them to inhabit characters without flattening them for international consumption. Language, for them, is not an accessory but a structuring force.
Beyond European cinema, this becomes even more pronounced. Languages such as Hindi, Arabic and Mandarin are spoken by hundreds of millions of people and underpin vast cinematic traditions. As global audiences grow more interconnected, the demand for authenticity increases rather than diminishes. Viewers can tell when a performance has been filtered through approximation. Subtle errors, misplaced emphasis, and an unnatural rhythm break the illusion.
There is also a practical dimension. Multilingualism expands opportunity. SofÃa Vergara has spoken openly about how learning English enabled her to work beyond Colombia and access Hollywood roles. But this movement is not a one-way export of talent into English-speaking cinema. Multilingual actors carry stories, styles and sensibilities back with them, enriching multiple industries at once.
Cinema has always thrived on such hybridity. Denzel Washington’s performances, for instance, draw on the cultural realities of growing up African American in the United States, while also reflecting stylistic influences from classic Hollywood and Westerns. His work demonstrates how identity and influence intersect on screen. Multilingual actors extend this intersection further, embodying multiple cultural frameworks simultaneously.
At times, linguistic authenticity is not merely artistic but ethical. Films that confront historical trauma, such as Schindler’s List, rely on language to anchor their moral seriousness. When Jewish actors perform in German, the choice is not incidental. Language becomes a site of memory and confrontation. It is difficult to imagine an automated voice carrying that responsibility without hollowing it out.
This is why claims that AI heralds the death of language miss the point. Language is not just a delivery system for information. It is a repository of history, humour, power and pain. Fluency is not only about knowing what to say, but when to hesitate, when to understate, and when to let silence do the work. These are not technical problems waiting to be solved; they are human instincts shaped by lived experience.
AI may one day improve its grasp of metaphor and nuance. It may even learn to sound convincing. But acting is not about sounding convincing; it is about being convincing. Until algorithms can acquire memory, cultural inheritance and emotional intuition, multilingual actors will remain irreplaceable. AI may learn to speak. But it cannot yet learn to mean.
In an industry increasingly tempted by shortcuts, language remains stubbornly resistant to automation. And for actors who can move between worlds, linguistic, cultural, and emotional, that resistance is not a weakness, but a quiet, enduring advantage.
