There exists no greater a Hollywood divide than that between audience and critic when it comes to the musical biopic. Despite producing some of the sloppiest genre work of the past decade, they operate as a potential landmine for both box office potential and award season success. Michael Jackson’s life - or rather, a portion spanning from childhood to the late 1980s - is the latest to go under the moviemaking spotlight, bringing one of the most decorated and celebrated artists of all time to centre frame. Developed in conjunction with the Jackson Estate, does Michael pay homage to a hero for many, or is this a glossy puff piece that misses the mark and fails to understand the man in the white glove?
Michael depicts the childhood, rise to frame, barrier-breaking successes and personal home life of Jackson’s unique career, from the formation of the family-centered Jackson 5 through to what many consider the peak of his career with Jackson’s 1988 Bad Tour. Directed by Antonie Fuqua and starring Jaafar Jackson, Michael’s nephew, as the “King of Pop”, Michael features significant figures from the artist’s life - from his extensive family to industry figures, and explores their influence over his success.
Almost every single piece of promotion for Michael has positioned the film as 'for the fans', and the muted-at-best critical reception only intensified those signifiers in the lead up to its record-breaking opening weekend, followed by cries of 'the critics we wrong, long live MJ', as if two things cannot be true at the same time. Michael Jackson is one of the most successful artists of all time, and this movie is not very good at all. Built by conforming to conventions that Jackson himself was keen to avoid and presented as the glossiest farcade that scrubs out all the dirt and texture that would provide a richer and more fulfilling representation of his life and legacy, Michael is a sanitised and safe, making the whole endeavour feel horribly hollow and shockingly inauthentic, again proving the trend that any biopic working alongside the artist's estate is doomed for a one-sided portrayal whose aim is, first and foremost, to protect future endeavours, earnings and opportunities.
The John Logan-penned screenplay is clearly operating inside strictly-imposed limitations, not only from the purported legal issues that conveniently excludes legal accusations from entering into discussion (whether you buy that 'red tape' or not is another question entirely..), but from the estate he is working alongside, evidently eager to protect a legacy. It provides little more than 5 minutes on Wikipedia could in contextualising Jackson’s career and even less on his artistry: Michael is depicted as unusual but immensely talented, his “otherness” presented as a result of a God-given talent which never intent on exploring his artistry. It barely touches on the creativity that drives his success, offering little insight into the processes that made him a visionary, and where that inspiration really came from. Not once does it seek to scrutinise or investigate, encouraging fans only to celebrate - which also works in their best interest of maintaining an unchallenged cash cow for them. Every trope and convention is peddled out, and so broadly sketched that it may be worth running some AI checks against the script.
Given that Jackson’s video for Thriller is credited as transforming music videos into a serious art form with its cinematic rendering, it is a shame that no such sophisticated can be found in Faqua’s direction. It has all the polish of a Hollywood biopic, but looks flat and uninteresting most of the time; the only time it feels striking in its visuals is when it is directly recreating footage from Michael’s career, and so it often plays out like a series of music videos that you question why you didn't stay home with Youtube on in the background. When your motion picture has been set up as one of the most undeniable theatrical experiences of the year, to have it come out looking like a direct-to-television affair is a terribly disappointing missed opportunity, particularly considering the production budget involved to bring the world to life.
Jaafar Jackson does a fine job of bringing his uncle to the screen, but his performance plays more as an impression than a fully-fledged interpretation and portrayal because the screenplay fails to provide him with the depth to fully reckon with the man behind the legend. Jaafar is particularly adept at exploring Michael's otherness, capturing his insular nature that means he often struggles to relate with his contemporaries and peers -- but so much of this is between-the-line reading, once again because the script inadequately fails to provide context to his life, cherry picking moments and piecing them together in the most slapdash manner. Colman Domingo suffers even more so, with his performance as patriarch Joseph Jackson playing so caricature that it almost feels like a pantomime villain, while Nia Long's matriarch is woefully underused.
Michael The Film's offensive blandness is a direct contradiction of what made Michael The Artist so beloved, and no amount of 'for the fans!' discourse will ever convince me that this is the most appropriate way of capturing a creative whose legacy still reverberates throughout an industry that never understood how to take him. It sanitises a complex and complicated legacy in favour of an easily digestible, mainstream depiction that portrays its titular figure as a victim, often minimising his talent by failing to provide insight into what made him the star he is known as today, to say nothing of failing to reckon with the more insidious elements of his stardom. Those happy just to merely celebrate will moonwalk away with a spring in their step, but those seeking a little more nuanced, balanced and investigatory experience will be bitterly disappointed with this rote, hokey and generic telling of the parts of his life they want you to see.